Investigation of the Tribal Park Concept and Opportunities for the Blackfeet Nation

University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana

Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School

2019

Iree Schmautz Wheeler

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd

Part of the Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y

Recommended Citation Wheeler, Iree Schmautz, "Investigation of the Tribal Park Concept and Opportunities for the Blackfeet Nation" (2019). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 11514. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11514

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INVESTIGATION OF THE TRIBAL PARK CONCEPT AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

THE BLACKFEET NATION

Iree Schmautz Wheeler

B.A. in Environmental Studies, Seattle University, Seattle, WA, 2015

Thesis

presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Resource Conservation

The University of Montana Missoula, MT

December 2019

Approved by:

Scott Whittenburg, Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School

Dr. Jennifer Thomsen, Chair Department of Society and Conservation

Dr. Elizabeth Covelli Metcalf Department of Society and Conservation

Dr. Rosalyn La Pier Department of Environmental Studies

Dr. Jeremy Sage Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research

Wheeler, Iree, M.S., December 2019 Resource Conservation

Investigation of the Tribal Park Concept and Opportunities for the Blackfeet Nation

Chairperson: Dr. Jennifer Thomsen

Abstract: The Tribal Park model is an emerging tool being used by indigenous groups in the United States and Canada for the management of unique and sacred natural areas, in some cases setting aside existing indigenous owned land, and in others regaining control of land management decisions in traditional territory. Currently in North America there are several sites that have self-identified as Tribal Parks. There is a lack of research regarding Tribal Park development in North America, which creates challenges for indigenous groups interested in pursuing a conservation designation of this type. Using an analysis of five Tribal Park case studies this thesis identifies the key components of these Tribal Parks. Specifically focusing on the economic, cultural, and ecological aspects of each case study. This research then uses interviews with members of the Blackfeet Nation, to explore the potential interest in a Tribal Park on Blackfeet Nation lands. This study finds that though the Tribal Park concept varies across case studies based on the needs of the specific community, there are some important common aspects across cases. These aspects include: a bottom-up community driven planning process with programs in place to increase capacity of community members, exercising sovereignty over land-use decisions in traditional territory, and connectivity of landscapes and habitat protection. Some of the themes identified by Blackfeet Nation respondents were potential benefits from capturing visitor overflow from neighboring Glacier National Park, increased access to land by community members, and concerns regarding land-use conflicts between different user groups.

Table of Contents

Table of Figures...... iv Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter Two: Literature Review ...... 4 Relationships between Protected Areas and Indigenous Groups ...... 4 Cultural Tourism ...... 5 Economic Impacts of Cultural Tourism ...... 7 Social-Cultural Impacts of Cultural Tourism ...... 9 Environmental Impacts of Cultural Tourism ...... 11 Community-Based Tourism ...... 12 Indigenous and Community-Based Monitoring ...... 13 The Indigenous and Community Conservation Area Model ...... 14 Tribal Parks ...... 18 Additional Land Protection Tools Used by Tribes ...... 19 Buffalo Restoration and Tribal Conservation ...... 22 Brief Context on the Blackfeet Nation: Shaping of the Current Blackfeet Reservation and Relationships with Federal Land Management Agencies ...... 24 Chapter Three: Methodology ...... 30 Phase One ...... 31 Phase Two ...... 33 Chapter Four: Exploration of Tribal Park Case Studies ...... 35 Overview of Case Studies ...... 36 Frog Bay Tribal National Park ...... 36 Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park ...... 46 Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department ...... 52 Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve ...... 65 Dasiqox Tribal Park (Nexwagwez?an) ...... 75 Overview of Case Studies...... 85 Role of Tourism and Economic Development ...... 88 Frog Bay Tribal National Park ...... 88 Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park ...... 90 Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department ...... 93 Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve ...... 95 Dasiqox Tribal Park ...... 98 Comparison of Tourism and Economic Development Across Case Studies ...... 99 Role of Cultural Benefits ...... 106 Frog Bay Tribal National Park ...... 106 Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park ...... 108 Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department ...... 109 Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve ...... 110 Dasiqox Tribal Park ...... 112 Comparison of Cultural Benefits Across Case Studies ...... 114 Role of Ecological Conservation ...... 119 Frog Bay Tribal National Park ...... 119

iii

Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park ...... 121 Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department ...... 123 Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve ...... 124 Dasiqox Tribal Park ...... 127 Comparison of Ecological Conservation Across Case Studies ...... 128 Tribal Park Framework and Implications for the Blackfeet Nation ...... 131 Chapter Five: Potential of the Tribal Park Concept for the Blackfeet ...... 139 Methodology ...... 143 Results ...... 143 Tourism and Economic Development ...... 143 Cultural Benefits ...... 150 Ecological Conservation ...... 154 Balances among Themes ...... 157 General Challenges ...... 158 The Planning Process...... 161 Discussion...... 172 Balancing Multiple Uses ...... 172 Relationship to Glacier National Park and Conservation Groups ...... 177 Role of Buffalo in Tribal Conservation Efforts ...... 180 Monitoring for Change and Impacts ...... 184 Chapter Six: Conclusions ...... 186 Works Cited ...... 197 Appendix A: Expanded Case Study Information ...... 230 Appendix B: ITRR Blackfeet Conservation Area Survey Responses ...... 253 Appendix C: Notes on Terminology ...... 270

Table of Figures

Figure 1: FBTNP Document Review ...... 36 Figure 2: Red Cliff Band Location ...... 37 Figure 3: FBTNP and FCCMA Locations ...... 38 Figure 4: Frog Bay Internal Stakeholders ...... 39 Figure 5: Frog Bay External Partners ...... 40 Figure 6: Frog Bay Timeline 2006-2014 ...... 42 Figure 7: Frog Bay Timeline 2015-Present...... 43 Figure 8: UMUTP Document Review ...... 46 Figure 9: Map of UMUTP ...... 47 Figure 10: UMUTP Relationships ...... 48 Figure 11: UMUTP Timeline 1900-1950 ...... 49 Figure 12: UMUTP Timeline 1970-Present ...... 50 Figure 13: Navajo Nation Documents Reviewed ...... 52 Figure 14: Location of the Navajo Nation ...... 53 Figure 15: Administrative Structure ...... 54 Figure 16: Navajo Nation Tribal Parks Locations ...... 56 Figure 17: Navajo Nation Stakeholders ...... 58 Figure 18: Navajo Nation Timeline 1930-1960 ...... 60 Figure 19: Navajo Nation Timeline 1960-1990 ...... 61

Figure 20: Navajo Nation Timeline 1992-Present ...... 62 Figure 21: Thaidene Nene Document Review ...... 65 Figure 22: Map of the proposed Thaidene Nene ...... 66 Figure 23: Thaidene Nene Stakeholders ...... 67 Figure 24: Thaidene Nene External Partners ...... 68 Figure 25: Thaidene Nene Timeline 1969-2006 ...... 69 Figure 26: Thaidene Nene Timeline 2007-2013 ...... 70 Figure 27: Thaidene Nene Timeline 2014-2015 ...... 71 Figure 28: Thaidene Nene Timeline 2015-Present ...... 72 Figure 29: Dasiqox Tribal Park Document Review ...... 75 Figure 30: Map of Dasiqox Tribal Park ...... 76 Figure 31: Dasiqox Leadership Framework ...... 77 Figure 32: Dasiqox External Partners...... 78 Figure 33: Dasiqox Timeline: 2014-2016 ...... 80 Figure 34: Dasiqox Timeline 2017 ...... 81 Figure 35: Dasiqox Timeline 2018-2019 ...... 82

Table 1: Frog Bay Allowable Uses ...... 45 Table 2: Ute Mountain Ute Allowable Uses ...... 51 Table 3: Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department Allowable Uses ...... 64 Table 4: Thaidene Nene Allowable Uses ...... 74 Table 5: Dasiqox Allowable Uses ...... 84 Table 6: Overview Case Study Characteristics ...... 87 Table 7: Role of Tourism and Economic Development ...... 105 Table 8: Role of Cultural Benefits ...... 118 Table 9: Role of Ecological Conservation ...... 130 Table 10: Distribution of Criteria by Theme Across Case Studies ...... 132 Table 11: Comparisons of Problems and Tribal Parks ...... 137 Table 12: Overview of Other Current Blackfeet Land-Use Efforts ...... 141

Chapter One: Introduction

The Tribal Park model is an emerging tool being used by indigenous groups in the United States and Canada for the management of unique and sacred natural areas, in some cases setting aside existing indigenous owned land, and in others regaining control of land management decisions in traditional territory (Carroll, 2014; Dasiqox, 2016; Frog Bay Tribal National Park, 2019; Murray

& King, 2012). This conservation model is based on Indigenous and Community Conserved

Areas (ICCAs), which are a conservation strategy used internationally under a variety of titles

(ICCA Consortium, 2017). The relationship between the Tribal Park model and other community led conservation models such as ICCAs is not well defined which has led to lack of clarity regarding their utility and key components. Additionally, many Tribes and First Nations in the

United States and Canada have complex histories with neighboring state, federal, and provincial protected areas. The relationship between the Tribal Park model and conventional protected area models in the United States and Canada has not been widely explored in research. The existing literature on the topic of Tribal Parks describes them as areas of importance that are managed by an indigenous group to meet self-determined conservation, tourism, and cultural goals (Carroll,

2014; Murray & King, 2012; “Position Paper”, 2016). Like ICCAs, Tribal Parks are in response to a trend of indigenous groups not only losing access to sacred areas and resources, but not being consulted in the protection of species and resources, that they have looked after for thousands of years (Burnham, 2000; Stevens, 2014; Spence, 1999).

Currently in North America there are several sites that have self-identified as Tribal

Parks. These areas are attempting to return resource management to native hands and allow use of traditional ecological knowledge in land management. Other central components are

1 encouraging cultural uses of the land and ensuring Tribal or First Nation realization of economic benefits from the tourism to these areas (Carroll, 2014).

The Tribal Park concept in North America has not been extensively studied. Though related in philosophy to the ICCA model there may be differences in how these conservation areas will impact the indigenous conservation movement in North America. In recent years there has been increasing studies of the Tribal Park concept for First Nations in Canada. However, despite the existence of several Tribal Parks in the United States, there is little research conducted on these sites. There is a need for more in-depth study of the avenues that are involved in developing a Tribal Park particularly in the United States. The lack of study of Tribal Parks, and lack of clarity of the term could make it difficult for an indigenous group interested in pursuing this type of designation to know where to start, or what may work/ or not work. The exploration of Tribal Parks, as an emerging avenue for conservation may shed light onto aspects of the ICCA model that have developed in the United States and Canada (Bassi et al., 2008).

The Blackfeet Nation (Amskapi Piikani) is located in Northwestern Montana and includes 1.5 million acres of land along the Rocky Mountain Front. Some members of the

Blackfeet Nation located in Northwestern Montana are interested in the development of an indigenous conservation area on the Blackfeet Reservation. The traditional Blackfeet territory comprises the east side of Glacier National Park (GNP), the Blackfeet Reservation currently comprises GNP’s eastern boundary. The stunning landscape of the Blackfeet territory where the

Rocky Mountains meet the plains is unique ecologically, as well receiving tourism as the gateway to visitors traveling to the eastern side of GNP. The Blackfeet have occupied the region for thousands of years (Reeves & Peacock, 2001). Settler colonialism led to many reductions in the Blackfeet land base and losses of access in the 1800s (Foley, 1974). Policies like the

Allotment Act diminished the land within the reservation in the hands of the tribe or tribal

members (Show, 2011). Presently, the Blackfeet Nation is in a unique location to capture tourism

from current visitors to GNP, repatriate land lost to policies such as allotment, and to set a new

precedent for conservation in the region by incorporating traditional uses and livelihoods into the

conservation of tribal land. The utility of a Tribal Park on the Blackfeet Reservation has been

proposed by a contingent of the Blackfeet Nation community, however the limited research

regarding the successes and challenges of the Tribal Park model makes it difficult to determine if

this model would be appropriate to meet the Blackfeet Nation’s interest and needs.

This research project aims to address the gaps in understanding the emerging Tribal Park

model in North America and to explore the potential for the Blackfeet Nation to develop a Tribal

Park. Specifically, the study will address the following research questions:

1) What is the utility and challenges of the Tribal Park model for the following Tribes and First

Nations: i) Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Wisconsin (Frog Bay Tribal National

Park), ii) the Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in communities of the Tsilhqot’in Nation, British

Columbia (Dasiqox Tribal Park Initiative), iii) the Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation

Department, Arizona iv) the Ute Mountain Ute, Colorado (Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park), and

v) the Lutsel K'e Denesoline, Northwest Territories (Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve)?

2) How could the Tribal Park model be an opportunity for the Blackfeet Nation?

For both research questions the following three sub-questions will be explored:

a. What is the role of tourism and economic development? b. What is the role of cultural benefits? c. What is the role of ecological conservation?

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Relationships between Protected Areas and Indigenous Groups

Historically, the Euro-American pursuit of pristine wilderness involved removal of Native

Americans from their land in favor of the romantic illusion of untouched nature (Burnham, 2000;

Cronon, 1996; Stevens, 2014; Spence, 1999). The impacts of this removal are described by

William Cronon (1996):

The myth of wilderness as “virgin,” uninhabited land had always been especially cruel

when seen from the perspective of the Indians who had once called that land home. Now

they were forced to move elsewhere, with the result that tourists could safely enjoy the

illusion that they were seeing their nation in its pristine, original state (p. 15).

As settlers expanded westward in the United States, a dual island system was developed to separate people from the land, sending Native Americans to reservations, and preserving

“nature” on protected areas (Spence, 1999). When native people are removed from protected area landscapes, they are not only losing access to resources, but losing access to a landscape that they have a cultural and emotional connection to (Thornton, 2014). For example, Tlingit elder

Richard Dalton lamented the loss of access to Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska: “I see my grandfathers on that beach, and I see my uncles because this is the place they were in love with.”

(Thornton, 2014:116) The dual island system has led to the blocking of access to resources on protected land, such as materials for physical and spiritual uses, as well as areas of cultural and spiritual significance (Spence, 1999).

In the management of protected areas worldwide, there has been an increased recognition of the importance for coexistence between protected areas and the communities living in or around them (Berkes, 2009; Hill, 2006; West, Igoe & Brockington, 2006). It is argued that co-

4 management is needed to promote coexistence between the cultural rights and needs of indigenous people and protected areas (Hill, 2006). There is also an emerging recognition that coexistence of indigenous communities and biodiversity is dependent on understanding the political, economic, and cultural processes that underlie resource use (Negi & Nautiya, 2003). In the United States, the implementation of resource-use agreements and co-management agreements on federal lands are being developed to provide access to resources and include cultural land uses in the resource management decision making process (Nie, 2008).

The displacement of indigenous communities from protected areas have long-term social and economic impacts (Tacconi & Bennett, 1995; Shyamsundar & Kramer, 1997; Snodgrass et al., 2016). The mental health impacts of displacement from protected areas have been studied recently using the case study of indigenous Sahariya living around a newly designated wildlife sanctuary in India. The displaced groups reported not only increased stress due to a forced relocation, but decreased hope about their futures, and low spirits (Snodgrass et al., 2016). The economic costs that are accrued by an indigenous community often focus on loss of access to resources that are connected with their livelihoods (Tacconi & Bennett, 1995; Shyamsundar &

Kramer, 1997).

Cultural Tourism

Cultural tourism is a sector of the tourism industry that has recently expanded in popularity

(Girard & Nijkamp, 2009; Smith, 2016). With cultural tourism increasing in prevalence, so has the study of the benefits and impacts of cultural tourism on the host community and for the visitor (Butler & Hinch, 2007; Smith, 2016; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016). Cultural tourism has been defined by the World Tourism Organization as: “movements of persons essentially for cultural motivations such as study tours, performing arts and cultural tours, travel to festivals and

5 other events, visits to sites and monuments, travel to study nature, folklore or art, and pilgrimages” (WTO, 1985:6). More recently, Du Cros and McKercher (2015) have defined cultural tourism as “a form of tourism that relies on a destination’s cultural heritage assets and transforms them into products that can be consumed by tourists” (p.6). This definition focuses on market aspects of cultural tourism and falls short of incorporating the impacts that cultural tourism has on communities. Smith (2016) recognizes these gaps and expands the definition to

“passive, active and interactive engagement with heritage, arts and culture(s) of communities, whereby the visitor gains new experiences of an educational, creative, and/or entertaining nature” (p.17).

Some scholars have distinguished between cultural tourism and indigenous tourism, though the definitions of cultural tourism described above refers to both tourism to indigenous communities as well as heritage and cultural “arts” tourism (Smith, 2016). The use of the terms

“Indigenous” and “non-Indigenous” have been used to describe the difference between the original inhabitants of a landscape and those people who are not the original inhabitants (Carr,

Ruhanen, & Whitford, 2016). In the context of this research the more encompassing term

“cultural tourism” is used.

Cultural tourism includes a diversity of activities. One example of cultural tourism is visitation to traditional festivals, markets and religious ceremonies (Smith, 2016). An example of festival cultural tourism is the Naadam Festival in Mongolia. This festival has been held since

1921 to celebrate Mongolia’s revolution of independence. The Naadam Festival is both important to Mongolians and of interest to tourists and visitors (“Naadam Festival”, 2009; Smith,

2016). Festivals such as Naadam exemplify an opportunity for an “intimate and spontaneous

6 cultural experience” (Williams & O’Neill, 2007:53). These characteristics have been identified as key in authentic cultural tourism experiences (Williams & O’Neill, 2007).

There is an increase in ‘Dual Track’ tourism where visitors desire outdoor experiences such as wildlife viewing in tandem with a desire for aboriginal cultural activities (Kutzner &

Wright, 2010). Scholars have suggested that integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge

(TEK) into cultural tourism development may attract visitors interested in both outdoor activities and cultural experiences (Menzies & Butler, 2007). Branding of indigenous rural tourism has also expanded as the market for a remote eco-tourism experience has increased (Polo Pena, Frias

Jamilena, & Rodríguez Molina, 2013). Other researchers have described this type of tourism where visitors seek a combination of nature and cultural experiences as “eco-cultural” tourism

(Tiberghien, Bremner, & Milne, 2017).

Another form of cultural tourism is the reproduction of cultural information for the purpose of education or entertainment. This can take the form of “staged authenticity” where indigenous groups recreate a primitive lifestyle or cultural activity for the benefit of others

(Taylor, 2001:11). Examples of this type of staged performance is the presentation of

“traditional” Maori culture by large tourism enterprises: “In these shows, which commonly take place in hotel environments that allow for little personal contact to take place between guests and their Maori hosts, cultural performance tends to rely on caricature and stereotype” (Taylor,

2001:15). Cultural centers and museum can offer additional opportunities for education and cultural awareness (Jamal & Hill, 2004).

Economic Impacts of Cultural Tourism

The economic benefits of tourism are often identified as a main driver for encouraging indigenous and rural communities to develop cultural tourism projects (Carr et al., 2016; Gomez-

Barris, 2012; Smith, 2012; Williams & O’Neill, 2007). For example, income generated through tourism provides “a fair exchange of value for value between indigenous and non-indigenous people” (Butler & Hinch, 2007:3). Cultural tourism has also shown the ability to help communities realize unique, innovative development opportunities (Carr et al., 2016). Further, cultural tourism could provide an alternative economic enterprise to the more degrading and less sustainable extractive industries (Butler & Hinch, 2007).

Conversely, scholars point out that cultural tourism must be considered with caution as a tool of economic development (Butler & Hinch, 2007; Carr et al., 2016; O’Gorman &

Thompson, 2007; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016). Some identified reasons include the external factors that may inhibit enthusiastic cultural tourism efforts such as geographical isolation and frequent political turnover (Carr et al., 2016). Inconsistent profit due to the seasonality of many tourism destinations is also suggested as an inhibitor to realizing significant economic benefit from cultural tourism (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016). An example of a seasonal tourism industry is cultural tourism in the French Acadian region of eastern Canada where the tourism season is

May-October. This leaves community members in need of other economic industries for six months of the year (MacDonald & Jolliffe, 2003).

The negative economic factors associated with cultural tourism include the ease with which the tourism industry can be influenced by companies and individuals outside of the host community. These corporations or people often retain most of the economic benefit from the cultural tourism enterprise (Goodwin, 2007). Butler and Hinch (2007) describe how it is all too common “for indigenous groups to be the subject of tourism rather than the control mechanisms of tourism in an area” (p. 323). This is identified as being in part because of outside ownership

8 and control of tourism enterprises (Simpson, 2008) and the lack of business and tourism education opportunities in rural areas (Schmiechen & Boyle, 2007; Williams & O’Neill, 2007).

One suggested enterprise to encourage community economic benefits with relatively small initial financial investment is guiding and culturally specific tour companies (Suntikul,

2007). Williams and O’Neill (2007) recommend more localized and culturally specific market research on tourism development strategies. Another recommendation is to increase research on the practical demands of cultural tourism for indigenous groups to increase the knowledge of where gaps in business and tourism education may be for specific communities (Schmiechen &

Boyle, 2007).

Social-Cultural Impacts of Cultural Tourism

Cultural tourism researchers have identified several social-cultural benefits of the industry

(Smith, 2016; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016; Whitney-Squire, 2016; Williams & O’Neill, 2007).

One potential socio-cultural benefit of cultural tourism is its ability to promote and encourage cultural practices and traditional languages (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016; Whitney-Squire, 2016).

It has also been proposed as a tool to encourage sustainable development and boost cultural pride and community cohesion (Smith, 2016). Other authors have suggested that sustainable cultural tourism can contribute to community control of what cultural activities are presented in tourism development (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016; Whitney-Squire, 2016). Further, cultural tourism can be a means for social development by offering communities an opportunity for cultural exchange and increase pride in cultural practices. As well as self-determination by providing opportunities for young people to take control of own economic destinies (Williams & O’Neil, 2007).

A main challenge facing the tourism sector regarding cultural tourism is balancing the needs and interests of tourists with the protection and safeguarding of sensitive cultural practices

9 and heritages of indigenous groups (Carr et al., 2016; UNWTO, 2012). Maintaining authenticity in cultural tourism practices means navigating a thin line between re-creation of cultural practices for educational and economic benefits, and the commodification of identity and tradition (Jamal & Hill, 2004).

Critics of developing cultural tourism for indigenous and rural communities emphasize that it is too often imposed on a rural or indigenous community against their interests (Whitford

& Ruhanen, 2016). Cultural tourism has also been criticized for threatening cultural survival through an “erosion of language, customary practices, and cultural knowledge systems…”

(Johnston, 2014:3). To avoid this deterioration of culture, the identification of protections against unethical government and industry practices are necessary before allowing tourism development

(Whitney-Squire, 2016). Another main concern of cultural tourism is the commodification of cultures and history (Shepherd, 2002).

These threats are proposed to be in part due to the difficulties of managing diverse cultural values, with incompatible priorities between host communities, tourists, and external tourism operators (Carr et al., 2016). In the case of the Lutsel K'e Denesoline First Nation

(LKDFN), the ideas of “wilderness” and a “romanticized indigenous past” present in the narrative of ecotourism are perceived to obscure their contemporary culture and presence on the landscape (Holmes et al., 2016:1178). The Sami of Norway and Sweden offer another example where tourism is perceived as both a job opportunity and an arena for cultural changes, yet the

Sami are concerned about the potential for commercialization and potential degradation of their culture (Pettersson & Viken, 2007).

Other scholars are more concerned that acculturation and erosion of social fabric may be inevitable effects of cultural tourism (Smith, 2016). Models that have been used to address the

10 social concerns of cultural tourism include the development of an “indigenized code of conduct” by the LKDFN as a set of moral guidelines for tourists who are visiting the protected areas in their traditional territories (Holmes et al., 2016). The Haida Gwaii of Canada developed initiatives to incorporate revitalization of traditional languages into cultural tourism projects

(Whitney-Squire, 2016). Conserving traditional languages to sustain cultural practices and traditions is important both to maintaining authenticity in cultural tourism, as well as pride and cultural knowledge for community members (Whitney-Squire, 2016). Other important identified strategies include: “the importance of governance, collaboration and embedding Indigenous values and world-views in tourism development is unequivocally necessary to affect positive outcomes with any tourism venture” (Carr et al. 2016:1075).

Environmental Impacts of Cultural Tourism

Research on sustainable cultural tourism identifies the importance of integrating TEK into cultural tourism projects because this knowledge of the environmental system could provide monitoring of the impacts of tourism activities (Menzies & Butler, 2007). In the case of the

Gtxaaϯa, a Tsimshian Nation in British Columbia, TEK is being integrated into developing tourism activities such as sport fishing and hunting in their territory (Menzies & Butler, 2007).

The integration of eco-tourism and wildlife viewing with cultural tourism activities has been identified as a successful way to diversify tourism development opportunities for local people in the case of the Maori in New Zealand. Maori-led wildlife tours and nature walks provide tourists with a local and cultural perspective of the land through interpretation of myths and legends, traditional physical activity in the landscape, and relating personal or family history with the land to visitors (Carr, 2007).

Tourism has also been suggested as an economic enterprise that allows local communities to reduce their dependence on hunting and resource extraction (Horowitz, 1998). However, the argument for a positive transition from resource extraction to tourism has also been criticized as

“a naïve assumption that tourism is a natural ally to nature conservation” (Bratek, Devlin, &

Simmons, 2006:142). This criticism comes from a case study of longhouse communities in

Sarawak, Malaysia, where economic benefits of tourism were too small to allow a community to move away from reliance on hunting and resource collection (Bratek et al., 2006).

Concerns regarding the environmental impacts of cultural tourism include the increased use by people for tourism development which may destruct natural habitats (Smith, 2016) as well as the degradation of ecosystems due to increased visitation and traffic (Whitford & Ruhanen,

2016). Increased hiking and mountaineering in areas without hardened trails in the Eastern Alps have led to trammeling of sensitive subalpine grasses and a decrease in biodiversity (Klug,

Scharfetter, & Scharfetter, 2002). Unregulated commercial development to accommodate increasing tourism can also lead to degradation of cultural and scenic values (Archer, Cooper, &

Ruhanen, 2005). This has been exemplified in places such as Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge,

Tennessee where growth exceeded authentic or sustainable levels (Tooman, 1997).

Community-Based Tourism

Community-based tourism has been described as one way to encourage sustainable tourism development by using “public involvement functions as a driving force to protect the community's natural environment and culture as tourism products, while simultaneously encouraging greater tourism-related income” (Okazaki, 2008: 512). In community-based cultural tourism development the importance of community led planning rather than top-down tourism development is central to communities realizing the benefits of cultural tourism development

(Salazar, 2012). Shortcomings to the community-based tourism model include generalization of host communities as a “homogenous bloc”, and structural limitations which limit community control, and benefit, from the tourism industry (Blackstock, 2005). In discussions regarding the development of community-based tourism, researchers have noted that collaboration must occur between community members, tourism industry representatives, and conservation program managers. This collaboration facilitates addressing issues in the areas of resource conservation, climate change, community empowerment and economic development (Jamal & Dredge, 2014).

The community-based tourism planning process requires considering multiple components and balancing the host community needs and tourist interests. Community involvement needs to be legitimate to ensure community-based tourism planning. Jamal &

Dredge (2014) describe the difficulties associated with achieving this consultation: “Legitimate, early involvement of stakeholders in tourism planning is not an easy task, in light of the fragmented control and multiple stakeholders in the destination” (p. 194). A cooperative tourism planning process that incorporates other components of economic development in the region

(Deng, Arbogast, & Selin, 2011) as well as the cultural and ecological needs of the community

(De Beers & Marais, 2005) has also been identified as central to gathering community buy-in for tourism development.

Indigenous and Community-Based Monitoring

Monitoring has been identified as central to developing sustainable tourism (Butler, Hall, &

Jenkins, 1998). Important tourism impacts to monitor include visitor behavior and ecological conditions (Ward & Twining-Ward, 2005). The importance of monitoring tourism to understand the impacts of tourism on the economic wellbeing, culture, and ecological landscape of a destination has been described by many tourism researchers (Butler, 1993; Hughes, 2002;

Wilson, Mutter, Inkster, Satterfield, 2018). Community-based monitoring of ecological impacts has increased in practice by First Nations in Canada as a tool for expressing indigenous sovereignty and jurisdiction (Wilson et al., 2018). In order to monitor tourism impacts on the community and the environment, indicators are necessary to measuring effects (White, McCrum,

Blackstock, & Scott, 2006). However, often the indicators are not set early enough in the tourism process to make attempts to correct impacts (Butler, 1993). Others have described that some impacts on the natural environment will occur with any tourism development. The key to sustainable tourism is monitoring tourism impacts and using adaptive processes to keep tourism activities from growing beyond the carrying capacity of the community and landscape (Hunter,

1997).

The Indigenous and Community Conservation Area Model

There has been increased recognition of the importance of integrating local communities and indigenous groups into the management and designation of protected areas (Langton, Rhea, &

Palmer, 2005; Pimbert & Pretty, 1997; Stevens, 2014). An indicator of this shift is the

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reorganization of their classifications of protected areas into six categories. The goals of Category VI, “Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources,” include the conservation of ecosystems and habitats in conjunction with traditional management practices and cultural values (IUCN, 2018). The emergence of this category of protected area has been described as a sign of a “new paradigm” in protected areas, as an example of a movement in the recognition of representing local people in protected areas

“making a link between protected areas and development questions, and by acknowledging the key role of local and indigenous groups” (Phillips, 2003:14). However, others have critiqued the new paradigm and the IUCN Category VI for sacrificing conservation for the sake of sustainable

14 development or failing to regulate sustainable use of resources in actual field settings (Shafer,

2015). The IUCN Protected Areas models have also been criticized for using a top-down management approach which fails to sufficiently include local and indigenous uses and interests

(West, Igoe & Brockington, 2006).

Due to the grassroots approach of Indigenous and Community Conservation Areas

(ICCAs), they may be a more effective in encouraging indigenous communities to conserve land in a way relevant to their cultural values and traditional uses (Kothari, Camill & Brown, 2013).

They also may provide places for people to interact with the land providing: “spaces where people can use the land, wildlife, water and plants in respectful, restorative and sustainable ways.” (Plotkin, 2018:25) ICCAs recognize the issues of efficacy and social justice in protected area management (Murray & King, 2012). The Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas

Consortium defines ICCAs as: “natural and/or modified ecosystems containing significant biodiversity values, ecological services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities— both sedentary and mobile—through customary laws or other effective means” (Bassi et al., 2008:2). There are many different models and levels of participation in the ICCA consortium that communities may choose to adopt. According Bassi et al. (2008) the three features that identify an ICCA are:

1) communities closely relate to the ecosystems and species culturally;

2) the communities are the major players in decision-making and implementation

regarding the management of the site; and

3) the community management decisions and efforts lead to the conservation of habitats,

species, ecological services and associated cultural values (p. 2).

Other studies have suggested that indigenous groups often characterize their relationship with nearby protected lands in terms of a removal from a landscape they actively created, and “lost ancestral resources” (Robbins, 2011:177). ICCAs allow for the involvement and engagement of community values and uses to be integrated along with goals of ecological conservation. A possible benefit of ICCAs has been suggested as leading government and conservation groups to integrate local and traditional ecological knowledge into conservation and protected areas

(Menzies & Butler, 2007).

There are several examples illustrating how ICCAs have been successful in conserving biodiversity from the cultural perspective. For instance, the Sherpa of Khumbu in Nepal continue to implement traditional land management regulations despite challenges such as lack of governmental recognition as a formal ICCA (Stevens, 2013). A recent study looking at biodiversity showed that indigenous-managed lands in Brazil, Australia and Canada have levels of biodiversity higher or equal to that of Protected Areas (Schuster, Germain, Bennett, Reo, &

Arcese, 2019). ICCAs also provide an opportunity for indigenous groups to incorporate traditional and cultural uses of the land into management decisions (Axford, Hockings & Carver,

2008; Berkes, 2004). Researchers have described the Australian approach to indigenous protected areas as being a successful model because the incorporation of ICCAs into the national system is the decision of the indigenous group so that indigenous people formally determine the appropriate level of government involvement (Berkes, 2009).

Attempts by governments to officially recognize the conservation efforts of indigenous and community members has sometimes produced negative conservation outcomes (Bassi et al.,

2008). Critics of the ICCA model have indicated that there is insufficient evidence regarding the biodiversity benefits of these indigenous and community conserved areas (Berkes, 2009). In

16 addition, well-intentioned financial support has proven socially and morally disruptive (Bassi et al., 2008). While government recognition and reimbursement for environmental activities are ways to build formal ICCAs, Berkes (2009) suggests “many indigenous and rural groups around the world associate ‘parks’ with ‘dispossession’” (p. 23). This can lead to a hesitation to pursue governmental recognition.

In the case of the Jardhargaon Community Conserved Area in Uttarakhand (India) there is an interest in being recognized by the government to aid the formalization of forest and wildlife management practices by the community and to pay the forest guards (Bassi et al.,

2008). However, in Nepal different groups have varying opinions about the benefits of official recognition. The Sharwa (Sherpa) of Sagarmatha would appreciate formal recognition as an

ICCA, while the Chepang people are concerned that formal recognition would lead to loss in control and access (Stevens, 2009).

The development of ICCAs by First Nations in Canada has been seen as an extension of culture linked to the land upon which they rely for their livelihoods (Smyth & Grant, 2012). One perspective on the relationship between culture and landscapes has been described as: “Whereas parks and other protected areas are generally viewed by Anglo-Americans as places separate from everyday human life, many native peoples view themselves as an integral part of specific park landscapes” (Craig, Borrie, & Yung, 2012:234). This view of a continuity between components is presented in indigenous conservation areas. In indigenous conservation areas there is an interconnection between people and the land that is not present in conventional protected areas which separate the environment, the well-being of the people, and culture from economic development, conservation, and land management (Plotkin, 2018).

Tribal Parks

In the United States and Canada, the term Tribal Park has begun to be used by First Nations and

Tribes pursuing indigenous-led conservation efforts. Some but not all of these Tribal Parks have referred to or affiliated themselves with existing models of conservation like ICCAs. For example, Dasiqox has cited the characteristics of ICCAs as inspiration but is not officially identify with the program (“Who we are”, 2019). Within the context of a history of dispossession of native peoples, recent emergence of Tribal Parks in the United States and Canada have been suggested as playing a role in systemic reclamations of indigenous sovereignty and territory using environmental stewardship as a tool (Carroll, 2014). The significance of this reclamation of sovereignty “must be understood against a history of attempted conquest, which intended to separate tribes from their ages-old trusteeship over aboriginal territory” (Wood & Welcker,

2008:385).

In British Columbia, there has been a rise in First Nations asserting control over existing protected areas as well as creating protected areas of their own often called Tribal Parks (Carroll,

2014; Murray & King, 2012; Smyth & Grant, 2012). When describing Tribal Parks created by the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, Grant Murray and Leslie King (2012) state that: “Tribal Parks can be understood as a projection of sovereignty over contested terrain” (p. 389). A determining factor in the development of Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks was the changing economy of the local area as resource extraction industries declined and tourism increased (Murray & King, 2012).

Paakumshumwaau-Maatuskaau Biodiversity Reserve of the Cree Nation of Wemindji in Canada has stated goals for their designation of an ICCA that show similarities to published goals of

Tribal Parks such as Dasiqox (Dasiqox, 2016). These goals include: landscape conservation; protection against hydro-electricity development interests; reaffirming land and resource rights;

18 community identity, cohesion and cultural needs (Smyth & Grant, 2012). The governance of many existing Tribal Parks has been more bottom-up community driven than traditional protected areas. As Murray and King (2012) describe the differences between Tribal Park governance and National Parks as, “an ongoing stakeholder engagement process and/or an integrated planning process that takes a holistic approach to sustainability and health.” (p. 394)

Additional Land Protection Tools Used by Tribes

Other land management tools have been used by Tribes and First Nations in the United States and Canada to exercise sovereignty over land use and repatriate lost territory. These tools include land trusts, and co-management agreements with federal, provincial, and state land management agencies.

Land Trusts

The use of conservation easements and land trusts by tribes in the United States has been described as a tool for environmental justice (Middleton, 2011). Indigenous land trusts are specifically land trusts and easements pursued by tribes or tribal members for the purpose of repatriating and protect tribal land. Some examples include the Native American Land

Conservancy, the Inter-Tribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, and the Indian Land Tenure

Foundation (Indian Land Tenure Foundation, 2002; Middleton, 2011; Rosales, 2010). Land trusts have been acknowledged as a tool for conserving land for the use of the community, autonomous from the tribal government system (Rose, 2011).

The Blackfeet Nation has a land trust called the Blackfeet Indian Land Conservation

Trust Corporation (BILCTC). Created in 2000 by Elouise Cobell, the BILCTC is managed as a non-profit and holds a trust on the Yellow Bird Woman Sanctuary. This sanctuary was of high conservation interest because it holds a glacial fen, or groundwater-fed wetland

(ōt"kwaipiiksaakii, 2019). The land for the sanctuary was purchased with the assistance of the

Nature Conservancy (TNC) and placed under an easement with the USFWS. The BILCTC represents a tribally managed land trust as well as a partnership between a tribal land conservation effort and a private conservation group (in this case the TNC). Cobell’s reason for pursuing a non-profit rather than developing a trust through the Tribal Business Council has been described as a belief that keeping land easements independent from tribal government could provide a more durable force for conservation (Grant, 2017). The active continued involvement of the BILCTC in recent years appears to be limited. The current engagement of the BILCTC was described in 2017 as:

The USFWS continues to conduct yearly visits to the FICR [Yellow Bird Woman

Sanctuary] and submits the required reports for the Conservation Easement. The BILT

Board still conducts meetings on a yearly basis. Members have short-term goals, continue

to monitor grazing strategies and works with BCC [Blackfeet Community College]

(Grant, 2017:61).

As described above, the protection of the ecologically significant landscape of the Yellow Bird

Woman Sanctuary continues to be managed by the BILCTC and USFWS.

Co-management and Government-to-Government Cooperative Management

In the United States there are several tribes with reserved access and treaty rights to federally and state managed lands. One tool used to protect the natural and cultural qualities of these lands from external threats (e.g. resource development and recreational activities) are co-management agreements (Nie, 2008). The term co-management has been used to refer to a sliding scale of formality and engagement (Pinel & Pecos, 2012) from official power-sharing agreements, to adaptive co-management initiatives incorporating traditional ecological knowledge and the

20 sharing of perspectives into management plans and actions (Olsson, Folke, & Berkes, 2004;

Plummer & Fitzgibbon, 2004). Co-management agreements between state or federal agencies and indigenous communities have been described as a tool to facilitate power sharing in resource management between agencies and tribal communities (Diver, 2016). Proponents of co- management have attributed co-management agreements to transforming the way tribal engagement is incorporated into the development of environmental policy (Carlsson & Berkes,

2005). Additional social benefits of co-management agreements have been described as the ability to “transform social relations and generate less conflictual ways of addressing difficult joint problems” (Pinkerton, 2003:70).

In addition to illustrating benefits of co-management agreements, the effectiveness of co- management has been challenged, with cooption of indigenous knowledge to fit into the constraints of agency management structures too often a result of co-management agreements

(Spaeder & Feit, 2005). Critics have charged that co-management agreements often lack the flexibility to share power, and effectively incorporate indigenous perspectives (Pinel & Pecos,

2012). Another central critique is that the power is often retained by the agency, and the result is more consultation than co-management (Nadasdy, 2003). One primary distinction between co- management agreements between land management agencies and tribes and other cooperative management agreements is that tribal co-management agreements are supported by legal authority due to reserved treaty rights. Additionally, co-management agreements between Tribal

Nations and government agencies are government-to-government agreements due to the status of tribal governments as sovereign entities (Nie, 2008).

In the traditional territory of the Blackfeet Nation, conflicts over the management of the culturally significant Badger-Two Medicine area, have occurred recently due to threats to the

21 cultural resources of the area by oil and gas leases. The Blackfeet have off-reservation treaty rights to this area which is managed by the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. One proposed solution to conflicts over appropriate management of this area has been co- management agreements between the USFS and the Blackfeet Tribe (Nie, 2008). Currently, tribal members and partners are fighting to remove the remaining oil and gas leases within the

Badger-Two Medicine area. In October of 2019 one of the remaining two leases was retired, leaving one 6,200-acre lease held by Solenex LLC (Scott, 2019). In regard to joint management of neighboring GNP, Craig et al., (2012) recommends that, “Co-management proposals will be most successful if they include resources to build Blackfeet tribal capacity to engage with

Glacier National Park, especially given Blackfeet concerns that they currently lack the capacity to effectively manage park resources” (p. 241). Other researchers exploring the potential of co- management between the Blackfeet and GNP have concluded that the fundamental differences in ways of knowing between the NPS and the Blackfeet regarding the role of humans in nature would make effective co-management challenging (Reeves & Peacock, 2001).

Buffalo Restoration and Tribal Conservation

ICCAs help in providing connectivity across large landscapes that is important for migration of wildlife, and for genetic exchange (Bassi et al., 2008). In the United States, the tribal management or co-management of lands adjacent to or within reservation boundaries and the resulting creation of large contiguous blocks of federal and tribal land may be well suited for large-scale buffalo restoration (Freese et al., 2007). In 2001, researchers identified that a tribal government had yet to seek cooperation with a federal land agency regarding the co-management of a tribal buffalo herd between tribal and federal lands. As the researchers describe, this co-

22 management could “test our social commitment to culture as well as ecological restoration”

(Torbit & LaRose, 2001: 8).

The use of thousands of acres of land for buffalo restoration herds by Native American groups in the United States has led conservation biologists to identify the important role that tribal buffalo herds could play in restoring large populations (Sanderson et al., 2008; Freese et al., 2007). One researcher describes this connection as, “Because many of the tribal bison herds were started or reinforced with surplus bison from national parks and refuges, some herds may be free of domestic cattle introgression and most, if not all, are brucellosis-free” (Freese et al.,

2007: 181). Studies of large landscape connectivity have suggested that tribal buffalo reintroduction projects are preserving tracts of land for recovering buffalo herds that support the larger goal of large scale reintroduction (Sanderson et al., 2008). Prairie reservations also allow for research of the ecological interactions between prairie species in a way that is no longer available elsewhere in the American west (Torbit & LaRose, 2001).

The Lakota of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation are one example of a Native

American group that has attempted to develop a Tribal Park around the reintroduction and management of buffalo. The Pte Hca Ka Inc. which managed a buffalo herd proposed as early as

1997 attempted to develop a Tribal Park which displayed the culturally significant buffalo herd.

The tribe identified that “a Tribal Park would create jobs for the reservation and would underline the sovereignty of the reservation” (Braun, 2008: 106). This Tribal Park effort was identified in

2003 by the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWGEJ) of the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental Justice as a project of which the intent was to examine how collaborative models can be utilized to ensure problem solving and sustainable solutions to a range of environmental, public health, social and economic issues

23 associated with environmental justice (IWGEJ, 2002). This Tribal Park was never developed in part due to lack of financial capital for necessary infrastructure improvements (Braun, 2008).

Brief Context on the Blackfeet Nation: Shaping of the Current Blackfeet

Reservation and Relationships with Federal Land Management Agencies

The Blackfeet Nation (Southern Piegan, Amskapi Piikani) is the southernmost band of the larger

Blackfoot Confederacy, or Niitsitapii (Craig et al., 2012). The Niitsitapii is comprised of three bands (the Kainai, Piikani, and Siksika) and expands across what is now the Canada-United

States Border (Reeves & Peacock, 2001). The other bands of the Blackfoot Confederacy reside in Alberta, Canada.

The Lame Bull treaty of 1855 added the Blackfeet and Gros Ventures tribes to the “Peace of the Plains” treaty signed in Fort Laramie in 1951 (Craig et al., 2012; Foley, 1974). The Lame

Bull treaty drew the first formal boundaries of the Blackfeet territory. This treaty was followed by a series of other treaties and actions by the federal government that further decreased the size of the Blackfeet land base. Beginning in 1873 and 1874, executive orders reduced the reservations southern boundary up from the Sun River past the Teton to the current location. In

1888, the eastern boundary was shifted further west to the Marias River north along Cut Bank

Creek (Foley, 1974). These reductions in size were in response to pressures from white settlers to the region who were in search of more land for endeavors such as ranching and had strong lobbying power with politicians (Foley, 1974). Beyond reductions of land base, the Blackfeet

Nation endured a series of horrific disasters in the late 1800s due to the actions of the federal government and westward expansion of white settlers. These events included smallpox epidemics, starvation winters, and military actions that led to deaths of more than one-quarter of the tribe (Craig et al., 2012; Foley, 1974; Rosier, 1999).

The most contentious historical reduction of the Blackfeet Reservation between 1855 and present was the Blackfeet Treaty of 1895-96. In this treaty, the Blackfeet ceded nearly 800,000 acres of the reservation to the U.S. Government for $1,500,000. This land, called the “ceded strip”, became the eastern portion of GNP, and the Badger-Two Medicine area (Ashby, 1985;

Craig et al., 2012; Nie, 2008). According to the 1895 Agreement Blackfeet rights on ceded lands included:

That said Indians shall have, and do hereby reserve to themselves, the right to go upon

any portion of the lands hereby conveyed so long as the same shall remain public lands of

the United States, and to cut and remove therefrom wood and timber for agency and

school purposes, and for their personal uses for houses, fences, and all other domestic

purposes: And provided further, That the said Indians hereby reserve and retain the right

to hunt upon said lands and to fish in the streams thereof so long as the same shall remain

public lands of the United States under and in accordance with the provisions of the game

and fish laws of the state of Montana (Kappler, 1904:606).

Several disputes resulted from the 1896 treaty that impact current Blackfeet perceptions of the conventional protected land model. First, the Blackfeet Tribe has questioned the legality of the

1896 treaty, stating misinformation and that tribal oral history holds that the Blackfeet were agreeing to a mineral lease not a sale of land (Nie, 2008; Show, 2011). Second, in 1932 the reserved rights of the Blackfeet Tribe within GNP were removed by a US District Court decision which argued the land ceased to be “public land’ when it became a National Park. Furthermore, the court claimed the Blackfeet Nation had not established use of reserved privileges and therefore forfeited those rights (Ashby, 1985; Craig et al., 2012; Keller & Turek, 1998).

Concerns regarding losses of access have persisted through the years influencing Blackfeet

25 community member support for conservation designations. One example of this hesitation was opposition by a contingent of the Blackfeet to including the Badger-Two Medicine area in the

1978 designation of the Great Bear Wilderness. This hesitation was described as due to concerns regarding losses of treaty rights such as timber harvest and other reserved treaty rights. Though the Tribal Business Council did eventually provide support for protecting the Badger-Two

Medicine as wilderness, granted that there were explicit protections for traditional activities and reserved treaty rights (Nie, 2008).

One component of the 1896 treaty was that the Blackfeet reservation would not be subject to allotment (Ashby, 1985; Show, 2011). The General Allotment Act of 1887 allowed for reservation lands nationwide to be divided between individual tribal members and families. One of the implications of this act was the loss of land base on reservations across the country by allowing the selling of “surplus” lands to non-tribal members. The gravity of this loss of land on reservations nationwide to non-tribal members was described as: “By the end of allotment in

1934, two-thirds of the land allotted—27 million acres—had passed into non-Indian hands”

(Royster, Blumm, & Kronk, 2002:56). The Blackfeet were vehemently opposed to allotment of their reservation (Ashby, 1985). Despite agreeing to not allot the reservation in the 1896 treaty, the Blackfeet reservation was allotted in 1907 and 1919 (Show, 2011). The current Blackfeet

Reservation land base is checker-boarded with a variety of land ownership types and many non- native landowners. The results of allotment impact the ability of individual tribal members to make a living on the land, impacting revenues from industries such as agriculture (Anaya, 2012).

The checkerboard of land ownership also makes conservation of tracts of land more complex for projects such as a potential conservation area.

The buffalo that had been a central part of the Blackfeet culture and a primary food source for centuries, had declined to near extinction by the early 1880s (Foley, 1974). This extermination was in part due to Western expansion of European settlers in the 1800s and exploitation of the buffalo for their hides and fur (Keyser, 2018; Sanderson et al., 2008). And in part due to a belief of federal government representatives that the extermination of buffalo would encourage Native Americans to assimilate to agricultural lifestyles (Ewers, 1983). The loss of the buffalo and a failure of the federal government to provide sufficient rations to accommodate the declines in available game animals contributed to a starvation winter in 1883 (Craig et al., 2012,

Foley, 1974). Recent efforts by the Iinnii initiative, Blackfeet for buffalo, have returned 88 genetically pure buffalo to the Blackfeet Reservation. These animals are descendants of the buffalo that traditionally lived in Blackfeet Country. The intention is for these animals to roam wild through the traditional Blackfeet Territory. The return of the buffalo is important culturally and spiritually to the Blackfeet People (Keyser, 2018). The significance of the Blackfeet- buffalo relationship has been described as a reciprocal relationship rather than the dichotomous relationships of western cultures:

People are a part of nature, as are streams and mountains, plants and animals. In this

world, bison are identified as relatives and afforded the same treatment as human

relatives. Thus, human–bison relations are based on reciprocity rather than the

hierarchical relationships of exploitation characteristic of western cultures (Oetelaar,

2014:95).

The regulations and restrictions of GNP are perceived by many members of the Blackfeet Nation as preventing realization of material, cultural, and spiritual relationships to the land (Craig et al.,

2012). There are long standing tensions between tribal members and GNP in part due to

27 historical displacement (Craig et al., 2012; Burnham, 2000, Keller & Turek, 1998). Since the creation of GNP, and the resulting loss of rights within the GNP boundaries, the Blackfeet have made several claims resulting in lawsuits regarding their rights to use the park particularly for hunting and timber harvest (Ashby, 1985). These lawsuits include: United States v. Kipp when a

Blackfeet tribal member refused to pay an entrance fee to enter GNP (United States v. Kipp,

1974) and United States V. Momberg, when a Blackfeet tribal member was fined for cutting a piece of dead wood from a tree in GNP (United States v. Momberg, 1974). The contemporary relationship between the Blackfeet and GNP is strained by conflicts over the GNP management practices and disputes along the shared boundary. The management of the Chief Mountain

(Ninastakis) area along the shared boundary is an example of this contention. Conflicts have arisen because of failures of the NPS to meet requests to restrict non-native access to this sacred peak (Keller & Turek, 1999; Reeves & Peacock, 2001). Additional conflicts in the Chief

Mountain area have arisen because of selective logging and grazing activities on the Blackfeet side of the boundary which conflict with NPS management goals for the region (Reeves &

Peacock, 2001). Other contentious concerns include frustration over the plant collection in GNP.

Many plants used for food, medicine, and spiritual activities by the Blackfeet are found within

GNP. Tribal members are not only exasperated with restricted access to these plants, but many elders interviewed for previous studies feel that their rights were wrongfully extinguished with the establishment of GNP (Craig et al., 2012; Reeves & Peacock, 2001). There have been alternatives to the current model proposed and ways to better integrate the interests and needs of the Blackfeet Nation into protected land management. These alternatives include voluntary closure of cultural sites (Keller & Turek, 1999), reinstated treaty rights within GNP (Craig et al.,

2012), better recognition of important plant gathering sites within GNP (Reeves & Peacock,

2001), and co-management of GNP and the Badger-Two Medicine (Craig et al., 2012; Nie,

2008). However, these suggestions are all based in the federal land management agencies retaining primary control, which many Blackfeet members associate with historical dispossession, and acquisition of land from the Blackfeet through deception (Craig et al., 2012).

The Tribal Park model may provide an alternative to land conservation that allows for community member visioning apart from the federal land management structure.

Chapter Three: Methodology

This study is an idiographic examination of specific North American Tribal Parks using a cross- case analysis (Babbie, 2012). Patterson and Williams (2002) describe hermeneutics as attempting to develop a perspective capitalizing on insights from prior research while being “open both to the "uniqueness" in the specific occurrence of the phenomenon being studied and/or to the study subjects' ‘horizon of meaning’” (p. 39). Due to the limited amount of prior research in this area of study, as well as the cultural differences between the researcher and the study respondents, it was important to open to different ways of knowing and meaning as they emerged. This study was conducted using qualitative field research methods with a case study approach. Content analysis in the form of document review, and semi-structured in-depth interviews were the primary data collection methods. Qualitative research methods and semi-structured interviews were determined to be appropriate because they incorporate prior subject knowledge as a guide without limiting or predetermining how respondents answer (Patterson & Williams, 2002).

In-depth interviews are a useful method when the research questions address a certain topic that the researcher aims to “gain rich qualitative data on a particular subject from the perspective of selected individuals” (Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2011:95). It is important to select a data collection method which allows for different ways of knowing, being, and describing experiences (Porsanger, 2004). Due to cross-cultural differences between the researcher and interviewees, semi-structured interviews allowed for themes or stories to emerge that may not have been apparent in the interview guide development process (Simonds & Christopher, 2013).

In-depth interviews and case studies have been used by other researchers exploring the emerging

Tribal Park model. In their case study of the relationship between Pacific Rim National Park

Reserve (PRNPR) and the Tla-o-qui-aht Nation’s Tribal Parks, in-depth interviews were

30 employed to further understand the contemporary relationship between Parks Canada and certain

First Nations bands (Murray & King, 2012). Document review has also been used to explore several emerging Tribal Park case studies through the lens of political ecology (Carroll, 2014).

This study contained two research phases. The methodologies used for each phase varied.

Phase One

In Phase One content analysis in the form of an in-depth document review was used as the primary data collection method. Content analysis is “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts to the contexts of their use” (Krippendorff, 2004:18). One benefit of using content analysis as a methodology for this study was that it allowed the researcher to study processes over time (Babbie, 2008). In several of the case studies there has been a long process towards development. This methodology allowed the researcher to observe the development of these case studies. Content analysis is also an unobtrusive methodology which was beneficial for studying remote and sensitive case studies (Babbie, 2008). In addition to document review, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with park managers at the case study sites. Out of the five cases studies, two sites agreed to interviews (Frog Bay Tribal

National Park, Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation). The chiefs involved in Dasiqox Tribal Park initiative declined an interview. However, a research agreement was developed between the researcher and the Tribal Park team. Documents and answers to technical questions were provided by the team coordinator through email and phone correspondence.

The case studies used in this phase explore the goals, challenges, and outcomes of developing a Tribal Park. The documents reviewed include: 1) reports and research documents conducted by or commissioned by the Tribal Park case studies; 2) informational documents published by the Tribal Park or their partners; 3) articles published in local and national news

31 outlets describing the Tribal Park; and 4) book or academic journal articles which discuss the

Tribal Park. The websites updated and managed by the Tribal Parks and their partners were also analyzed as “documents”. The interviews conducted with key members of the Tribal Parks were used as an outlet to ask questions that arose during the document review process, to fill gaps and provide clarity.

The documents reviewed were selected first by conducting initial web searches using the name of each Tribal Park and then expanding the key words to include terms such as

“conservation area” and the name of the First Nation or Tribe who developed the Tribal Park.

Every document that was found which contained information regarding the Tribal Park was included in the document review. The next step was reviewing the webpages of the Tribal Parks and compiling all the documents provided or mentioned on these websites. After compiling a list of documents organized chronologically, the documents were reviewed for main themes for each

Tribal Park. Additional documents were added to the review list as they were mentioned or cited in previous documents. The archives sections of Tribal, First Nations, federal and provincial governments provided another source to learn about how the Tribal Parks came to resolutions and decisions made regarding land-use. Additional documents were provided to the researcher by request from the Tribal Park units. If the document was not intended for public use, a research agreement was signed between the Tribal Park and the researcher.

When reviewing these documents, the following items were documented: names of influential people and organizations who were involved in the Tribal Park; dates of important events and important documents/announcements; relationships and perspectives regarding these

Tribal Park and how those relationships evolved or developed; documentation of desired conditions such as management plans, vision statements, and tribal council resolutions; and the

32 catalysts or actions that spurred the development of these sites such as supreme court decisions, or national park proposals. To organize key information from the documents, a spreadsheet was created for each Tribal Park. The spreadsheet included the document title, description of the document (main topic/purpose for this document, who wrote it, when published), summary of the document’s main points, and finally an interpretation/notes section for impressions and questions about that document. The next step was to review the collected information and gather descriptive information regarding each study site, compiling the timeline to development, key stakeholders, reasons for development, allowable uses, and funding sources. The final step was to code information collected from the documents for each case study location and synthesize across case studies into the three themes of: tourism and economic development, cultural benefits, and ecological conservation.

Phase Two

Phase Two involved conducting semi-structured in-depth interviews with members of the

Blackfeet Nation in positions which would either impact the potential Blackfeet Conservation

Area or be impacted by these proposed conservation lands. There were 12 official interviews conducted. Most of the interviews conducted involved one or two visits with the interviewee before an interview was agreed upon. The researcher eventually stopped conducting interviews due to time restrictions. Respondents included, three ranchers, four tourism operators and outfitters, four government program managers, and one external partner (from GNP). In addition to in-depth interviews, meetings were attended over the span of 17 months in topic areas that related to land use and conservation in Blackfeet Country. These meetings included:

• Monthly Agricultural Resource Management Plan (ARMP) meetings since August 2018

• Funding request meetings throughout the process with the ARMP team and the National Park

Conservation Association, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the Center for Large

Landscape Conservation

• Blackfeet Invasive Species Steering Committee meeting with new Blackfeet Fish and

Wildlife Director

• Food Sovereignty Strategic Plan workshop

• Climate Change Mitigation Plan meeting

• Center for Large Landscape Conservation GIS data consolidation effort presentation

• Iinnii Days buffalo camp and celebration

• Meeting with MSU Native Land program regarding the land buyback program

• Field trip to look at locations suitable for Blackfeet Conservation Area

• Indian Country Economic Development Grant Program meeting

At every meeting attended notes were taken and reflections of these notes was conducted afterwards. Additionally, at all interviews, transcribing of impressions and initial thoughts was conducted. The author Elizabeth Hoover in her book “The River is In Us” uses field observations as a tool to understand the complex relationships and implications of environmental pollutants to a community in the Mohawk Nation (Hoover, 2017). Participant observations have been described as beneficial to providing the researcher with “insights into interpersonal behavior and motives.” (Yin, 2009:102) Participating in these meetings also provided the researcher with the opportunity to build relationships and contact interview respondents.

In the analysis process interview transcripts as well as field notes were uploaded into the qualitative data analysis software, NVivo 12 to code into relevant themes. Themes were organized first by the themes from the interview guide, with additional emerging themes arising.

Chapter Four: Exploration of Tribal Park Case Studies

Chapter four discusses the information collected for Phase One of this research. Five case studies were explored using content analysis in the form of in-depth document review as the primary data collection method. In addition to document review, select semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with Tribal Park managers. The case studies used in this phase explore the challenges, key goals, and outcomes of developing a Tribal Park to address the following research question:

What is the utility and challenges of the Tribal Park model for the following Tribes and

First Nations: 1) Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Frog Bay Tribal National

Park), 2) Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in communities of the Tsilhqot’in Nation (Dasiqox

Tribal Park), 3) Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department, 4) Ute Mountain Ute

(Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park), and 5) Lutsel K'e Denesoline (Thaidene Nene)?

More specifically, the following sub-questions are explored:

• What is the role of tourism and economic development at these Tribal Parks?

• What is the role of cultural benefits at these Tribal Parks?

• What is the role of ecological conservation at these Tribal Parks?

Section one of this chapter provides an overview of each case study location, the geographical location, timeline to development, key stakeholders, allowable uses and funding sources. Section two focuses on the role of tourism and economic development, section three focuses on cultural benefits, and section four focuses on ecological conservation, followed by a comparison of each theme across the case studies. Section five discusses the potential implications of these case studies for the Blackfeet Nation’s discussions and planning of a Tribal Park or conservation area.

Additional background information for the five case studies is provided in Appendix A.

Overview of Case Studies

Frog Bay Tribal National Park

The information collected for Frog Bay Tribal National Park (Frog Bay) (Figure 1) included ten newspaper and magazine articles; six documents from partner agencies; 32 media releases from

Tribal Park management; and 30 documents released directly from the Red Cliff Band Tribal

Government. Additionally, an interview was conducted with the Treaty Natural Resources

Division administrator, who is in charge of managing lands acquired by the Tribe for preservation and conservation including Frog Bay and Frog Creek Conservation Management

Area (FCCMA).

10 Magazine and newspaper articles discussing the development of Frog Bay. 32 Treaty Natural Resources Division newsletters from 2012 – 2019, press releases, and Red Cliff newsletters. 6 A report from a regional tourism organization, documents released by Bayfield County regarding land acquisition relationship with Red Cliff Band. 30 Tribal council meeting notes for every meeting from 2009 through February2019 (346 meetings in total), 25 meetings included resolutions, MOU, and MOA signing relating to the Frog Bay project. Also reviewed were zoning ordinances, the Red Cliff Integrated Resources Management Plan, project proposals, and reports to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Figure 1: FBTNP Document Review

Geographic Location

Frog Bay and FCCMA are located within the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa reservation in Northwestern Wisconsin (Figure 2). The Red Cliff Band reported to have 7,021 enrolled members as of 2004, 1,254 of which live on-reservation (“Heritage and Culture”, 2004).

The reservation is along Lake Superior and adjacent to Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.

Source: https://goo.gl/maps/8batpgM4EKaYRyVo7

Figure 2: Red Cliff Band Location

The current footprint of Frog Bay is nearly 300 acres along the shoreline and estuary where Frog

Creek meets Lake Superior (Figure 3). The first parcel of land (A), the 90-acre Johnson Parcel, is the only area of land with maintained trails. The second parcel (B) is also open to the public. The remaining 120 acres of preserved land (C and D) are maintained as the FCCMA. The main difference between the Frog Bay and FCCMA is that Frog Bay is open to the general public whereas FCCMA is only open to tribal members for designated uses such as ceremonies and the collection of traditional medicines and foods (Interview Transcript, 2018).

B c

Source: Http://redcliff-nsn.gov/divisions/TNRD/FBTNP.htm

Figure 3: FBTNP and FCCMA Locations

A 90 acres First private landowner (Johnson) parcel B 87 acres Second private landowner (Smith/Melburg) parcel C 40 acres Red Cliff trust land D 80 acres Bayfield County timber land A

B Stakeholder Relationships

The management of Frog Bay (Figure 4) comes mainly from the Red Cliff Treaty Natural

Resources Division with support from the Red Cliff Tribal Council. To a smaller extent the Red

Cliff Planning Department and tribal members are involved. The Red Cliff Planning Department is responsible for zoning ordinances which support land preservation projects such as Frog Bay and FCCMA. The tribal members provide input regarding land-use decisions and support for the

Tribal Park and Conservation Area.

Red Cliff Red Cliff Planning Tribal Members Department Red Cliff Tribal Council

Red Cliff Treaty Natural Resources Division Frog Bay Tribal National Park

Figure 4: Frog Bay Internal Stakeholders

External partnerships have also been important in development (Figure 5). The circles representing the Bayfield County Tribal Relations Committee, the Great Lakes Restoration

Initiative (GLRI), and the Bayfield Regional Conservancy are largest because these three groups played large roles in land acquisition. Partnering with the Bayfield Regional Conservancy made acquiring the Johnson Parcel (A) possible, the agreement with Bayfield County has allowed for

39 acquisition of County owned land on the reservation (Olivo, 2018), and the GLRI has provided several grants to make further land acquisition possible (“Funding”, 2019). The NPS has partnered with the tribe on other preserved land parcels and supports land preservation efforts to ensure landscape connectivity (“Funding”, 2019; Olsen, 2018). The Apostle Islands Area

Community Fund, The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, and the NOAA Coastal and

Estuarine Land Conservation Program provided funding support for the Johnson Parcel through the Bayfield Regional Conservancy.

National Park Service Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Apostle Bayfield County Tribal Islands Area Relations Committee Red Cliff Band of Lake Community Bayfield Fund Superior Chippewa Regional Conservancy

Wisconsin Coastal NOAA Management Coastal and Program Estuarine Land

Conservation Program

Figure 5: Frog Bay External Partners

Timeline and Background

The significance of land repatriation for the Red Cliff Band began with the 1854 La Pointe

Treaty on Madeline Island which designated the Red Cliff Reservation along the shores of Lake

Superior. The 1887 passing of the General Allotment Act allowed for reservation lands to be divided between individual tribal members and families. One of the implications of this act was the loss of land base on reservations across the country by allowing the selling of “surplus” lands to non-tribal members (Royster et al., 2002). By 1900, the entire Red Cliff Reservation had been split into 205 allotments (Busch, 2008; Loew, 2013; “Origins and History”, 2018). Currently the

14,000-acre reservation has 1,400 acres of which are owned by the county. According to the Red

Cliff website: “The remaining 6130.652 acres are alienated lands in fee simple or taxable status.

There is a mixture of tribal and non-tribal ownership, including lands held by the U.S.

Department of the Interior through the National Park Service for the Apostle Island National

Lakeshore” (“Origins and History”, 2018: para 13). The establishment of Frog Bay was initiated by the framework for land repatriation outlined in the 2006 Red Cliff Band Integrated Resources

Management Plan. Figures 6 and 7 contain a timeline of events for Frog Bay and FCCMA development.

Figure 6: Frog Bay Timeline 2006-2014

Figure 7: Frog Bay Timeline 2015-Present

Allowable Uses

In the early stages of Frog Bay, some tribal members were not enthusiastic about opening the newly acquired reservation land up to the public. This sentiment was described by the Treaty

Natural Resources administrator as: “when we first purchased this property and we were opening it to the general public there were some tribal members who said you know our land base is already so small. Now that we are getting this land back why are we opening it back up to everyone else?” (Interview Transcript, 2018). Due to concerns among tribal members about allowing public access to Frog Bay, the decision was made to create the FCCMA. Lands in the

FCCMA are reserved for tribal members use only, whereas lands in Frog Bay Tribal National

Park are open to use by the general public (“Frog Bay Tribal National Park”, 2019). No permit or guide is required for the public to access the trails and beaches of Frog Bay. Enforcement of regulations and trail maintenance is conducted by the Treaty Natural Resources Division

(Interview Transcript, 2018). The permitted land-use activities at Frog Bay are more restrictive than in other Tribal Park case studies. The allowed uses include: “hiking, wildlife viewing, scenic viewing, activities of cultural significance. Spiritual ceremonies and quiet enjoyment by tribal members” (Treaty Natural Resources Division Newsletter, 2017:14). Use of motorized vehicle within Frog Bay and FCCMA is strictly prohibited (Red Cliff- Chapter 25, 2017).

The first parcel of land purchased for Frog Bay was put into a conservation easement managed jointly by the Red Cliff Band and the Bayfield Regional Conservancy (Interview

Transcript 2018). The Red Cliff Band Code of Laws includes a “Preserved” land use zoning, all later parcels added to Frog Bay and FCCMA are within this land zone. The choice to protect additional parcels within Frog Bay under the zoning ordinance as “Preserved” and not pursue a conservation easement through a third party has been described as a conscious choice for the

tribe to exercise their sovereignty: “Which is good, I mean letting the tribe exercise their own sovereignty in that respect, they are the ones protecting it, they don’t have to have a third party come in and confirm that it is being protected” (Interview Transcript, 2018). There are other parcels of land within the reservation zoned as “forestry” which involves managing forested areas for timber harvest. Lands zoned as “Preserved” do not allow timber harvest (Red Cliff

Code of Laws-Chapter 37, 2017).

Frog Bay Allowable Uses Access • 177 acres are open to the public with maintained trails. • Remaining 120 acres only open to tribal members. Allowable Uses • Hiking • Cultural activities • Gathering of plants Prohibited Uses • Motorized vehicles • Grazing • Timber harvest Table 1: Frog Bay Allowable Uses

Funding Sources

In the beginning, the Bayfield Regional Conservancy assisted with gathering funds for acquiring the Johnson Parcel from the following sources: “the Apostle Islands Area Community Fund, which provided funding for the transaction closing costs; and the U.S. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Agency’s Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, which provides funding for local governments to acquire coastal lands” (Treaty Natural Resource Division

Newsletter, 2012: 12). Since that time, much of the funding for land purchasing has been acquired through grants from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Great Lakes Restoration

Initiative (GLRI). Three grants of $562,500 total are listed as going to the Red Cliff Band for land acquisition projects to contribute to Frog Bay and FCCMA between 2012 and 2018

(“Funding”, 2010).

Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park

The documents reviewed (Figure 8) for Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park (UMUTP) included ten articles advertising UMUTP; there were no press releases or media releases published by the tribal government or Tribal Park management to review; eight books and journal articles which discussed UMUTP; and three available Ute Mountain Ute published documents which described the tribal park and the regulations that determine land use on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. 10 Magazine and newspaper articles regarding UMUTP. 0 8 Books and articles written about the UMUTP. 3 The Ute Mountain Ute tribal constitution, the website of the Tribal Park, the Groundwater Protection Plan created by the Ute Mountain Ute. Figure 8: UMUTP Document Review

Geographic Location

The UMUTP is located within the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation in the Southwest corner of Colorado, extending into New Mexico and Utah. The Ute Mountain Ute Reservation has

2,134 enrolled tribe members, and is home to the Weeminuche band of Utes, one of the seven original Ute bands that inhabited the Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico part of the southwest (“Culture and History”, 2011). As of 2004, the Ute Mountain Ute tribe employed 900 people and was the second largest employer in the Four Corners region (Mountaintop Associates

Inc, 2004). Mesa Verde National Park is located on the northern border of the Ute Mountain Ute reservation, directly north of the UMUTP. The UMUTP comprises 125,000-acres of the Ute

Mountain Ute reservation’s 575,000-acres (Mimiaga, 2018). Combined the UMUTP and Mesa

Verde National Park comprise the largest archeological preserve in the United States (“Mancos

Canyon Historic District”, 2019). The UMUTP is operated as a faction of the tribal government, allowable uses are subject to tribal council decision making (Burnham, 2000).

Source: Carrol, 2014

Figure 9: Map of UMUTP

Stakeholder Relationships

A Tribal Park director, appointed by Tribal Council, oversees management of UMUTP. The

Tribal Park is managed as a division of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Weeminuche Construction

Authority, wholly owned by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, maintains roads into UMUTP

(Mountaintop Associates Inc, 2004). PaleoWest Archeology, the Research Institute at Crow

Canyon, the Colorado Historical Society, and UC are included in small circles because they have provided support to UMUTP over the years. PaleoWest and Crow Canyon have been involved in aerial mapping of the ruins within the Tribal Park, UC has provided archeological training and assisted in stabilization projects. The Colorado Historical Society has provided grants to develop a Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) and support ruins conservation efforts. The NPS is involved because of the shared boundary and historical attempts for NPS management of the

Mancos Canyon ruins. There does not appear to be collaboration between the NPS and the Ute

Mountain Ute regarding the Tribal Park and management of the ruins.

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe National Park Service

Weeminuche Construction Ute Mountain Authority Ute Tribal Park Crow Canyon

PaleoWest University Colorado of Colorado Historical Society

Figure 10: UMUTP Relationships

Timeline and Background

The 1906 designation of Mesa Verde National Park is significant to the UMUTP dialog because it represents removal of land from the Ute Mountain Ute reservation land base to create the national park (Roberts, 2011). In 1911, government representatives recognized that when drawing the boundary of Mesa Verde, there were many ancient pueblo ruins within the Mesa

Verde plateau which were still located within the Ute Mountain Ute reservation (Roberts, 2011).

From 1911 until the 1972 Historic District designation of the UMUTP, the National Park Service made many attempts to acquire the Mancos Canyon area from the Ute Mountain Ute (Torres-

Reyes, 1970). Figures 11 and 12 provide a timeline events central to UMUTP.

Figure 11: UMUTP Timeline 1900-1950

Figure 12: UMUTP Timeline 1970-Present

Allowable Uses

Non-Ute visitors may only enter the UMUTP with a Ute Mountain Ute tour guide (Akens, 1987).

The one exception is to access the primitive campground within Tribal Park boundaries.

Restrictions on visitation can be attributed to opposition in a contingent of the tribal population at the time that the Tribal Park was developed, as well as concern about the impacts from visitors on Ancient Pueblo ruins (Carroll, 2014; Mimiaga, 2018). Within UMUTP, there are no restrictions on tribal members beyond those imposed by the National Historic District designation. Hunting, grazing, motorized vehicle use, even the development of homesites is permitted to a certain extent. The limited development in tribal park boundaries may be more restricted by the National Historic District Designation than by Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Council regulation. The NPS describes the limitations in listed historic districts as, “Historic landscapes and significant viewsheds must be preserved.”(National Park Service, 2019: para 9)

Ute Mountain Ute Allowable Uses Access • Non-tribal visitors may only enter with a tribal tour guide. • One exception is to use primitive campground within park boundaries. Allowable • Hunting (by Ute Mountain Ute members) Uses • Grazing • Motorized vehicles • Homesites • Oil and gas leases Prohibited • Under National Historic Preservation Act-historic landscapes and significant Uses viewsheds must be preserved. Table 2: Ute Mountain Ute Allowable Uses

Funding Sources

Funding for the daily management of the park comes from Tribal Council and funds from camping and guiding. However, reports have described this revenue as minimal: “the park only recovers about half of budget from tour fees and visitor center sales, the rest comes from the tribe’s general funds” (Burnham, 2000: 265). Funding for stabilization and maintenance of the

ruins over the years has partly come from state and federal grants (Mimiaga, 2018). The tribe developed Colorado’s first Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) and in 2015 the tribe adopted a Cultural Resources Management Plan. In 2016, the tribe received a State Historical

Fund (SHF) grant ($149,753) for digital mapping of archeological resources. In 2018, the Ute

Mountain Ute tribe received another grant of $177,725 from the SHF for outreach and development of materials regarding the THPO office (“Grants Awarded”, 2019).

Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department

For the Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department (Navajo Parks and Rec) the documents reviewed (Figure 13) were: 15 newspaper articles; six press releases from the Navajo National government; 12 reports or journal articles published by outside organizations; and six reports or documents published directly by the Navajo Parks and Rec Department. An interview was also conducted with a representative from Navajo Parks and Rec.

15 Magazine and newspaper articles about the Navajo Parks and Rec Department. 6 Press releases from the Navajo Nation that related to the Navajo Parks and Rec Department. 12 Reports and documents published by partner organizations. 6 Reports and Documents published directly from the Navajo Parks and Rec or the Navajo Nation. Figure 13: Navajo Nation Documents Reviewed

Geographic Location

The Navajo Nation reservation is located in the four corners region of the southwestern United

States, in northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and southeastern Utah (Figure 14).

The largest reservation in the United States, the current footprint covers an area of over 27,000 square miles (“Discover Navajo”, 2019). The Navajo National Government is comprised of three branches similar to the United Sates governmental structure: an executive branch with a president and vice president, a legislative branch with a 24-member tribal council, and a judicial

branch. There are also 110 local governments, called chapters, which make on the ground decision’s community-by-community (“Governmental Structure”, 2019).

Source: https://goo.gl/maps/Wivuiz868MU3DLpe8

Figure 14: Location of the Navajo Nation

The Navajo Parks and Rec Department manages five Tribal Parks throughout the Navajo Nation

(Figure 16) and two campgrounds. Each Navajo Tribal Park has a designated park manager who reports directly to the Navajo Parks and Rec Department manager. The Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources director supervises the Navajo Parks and Rec department manager.

Legislative oversight for the Navajo Nation Parks and Rec is provided by the Resources and

Development Committee (Figure 15) (Tom, 2018a).

Figure 15: Administrative Structure

A. Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park (MVNTP) is the largest of the Navajo Parks and Rec

Tribal Parks, at 91,696 acres spanning Arizona and Utah. Monument Valley is described on

the Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation page as “one of the most majestic and most

photographed places on earth”. There is a loop road through this Tribal Park accessible by

the general public for an entrance fee. There is also a visitor center, privately owned hotel,

and several short trails accessible by the general public (“Monument Valley Navajo”, 2019).

B. Lake Powell Navajo Tribal Park (LPNTP) receives the highest visitation, receiving over

800,000 visitors in FY 2016 (Tom, 2018b). LPNTP includes the Upper and Lower Antelope

Canyons, Upper and Lower parts of East Waterholes (slot canyons) and the Rainbow Bridge

Trail. The Antelope Canyons and the Upper Part of East Waterholes require a Navajo guide

for access. The areas that do not require a guide in this Tribal Park require a backcountry

hiking permit in addition to the entrance fee (“Lake Powell Navajo Tribal Park”, 2019).

C. Little Colorado River Navajo Tribal Park (LCRNTP) was established in 1962 and reports

attracting 80,000 visitors annually (Tom, 2018b). The LCRNTP is comprised of a paved

parking lot and overlook with picnic area and interpretive signs. Navajo vendors sell crafts

and food in the parking area. In 2016 a shelter with picnic tables and an overlook with

interpretive signs were added to this site (Locke, 2016). The LCRNTP requires backcountry

permits for hiking, however using the picnic area and overlook is by donation. According to

the February 2018 audit of the Little Colorado River Tribal Park, the revenue for FY 2016

from entrance donations was $101, 891 (Tom, 2018b).

D. Four Corners Tribal Park is located where Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico meet.

There is a concret pad which was put at this site in 1912 by government surveyors (“Discover

Navajo”, 2019). The site was upgraded in 2010 and is operated by the Navajo Nation with an

entrance fee of $5 required (“Discover Navajo”, 2019; “Four Corners Monument”, 2019).

There is also a demonstration center with Navajo vendor carts set up around the site selling

crafts and traditional Navajo food (“Discover Navajo”, 2019). It is unclear what year this

monument opened under the management of the Navajo Parks and Rec, though it was likely

around 1962 when LCRNTP and LPNTP opened.

E. Window Rock Navajo Tribal Park and Veteran’s Memorial is named after the sandstone arch

with a cirle “window” in it, this small park and memorial is located next to the Navajo Nation

headquarters in Window Rock, Arizona. There is no fee to enter, there are several

interpretive signs and a memorial to the Navajo code talkers of World War II (“Discover

Navajo”, 2019).

F. Asaayi (Bowl Canyon) Recreation Area features a campground and picnic area next to

Asaayi Lake. There is not an entrance fee required to enter the Bowl Canyon area, however

the Navajo Parks and Rec Department says that a camping permit ($12 per day) is required

for camping or picnicing in this area (“Bowl Canyon Recreation”, 2015).

G. Cottonwood Campground at Canyon de Chelly is located just outside of the Canyon de

Chelly National Monument, Navajo Park and Rec manages and collects fees for use. There

are 92 sites, and restrooms with sinks and flushable toilets. No showers or RV hook-ups are

provided (“Outdoor Activities”, 2015).

Figure 16: Navajo Nation Tribal Parks Locations

Stakeholder Relationships

The Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department is part of the Navajo National government.

For more information on the administrative structure of the Navajo Nation refer to Figure 15.

The Navajo Nation Tourism Department works with Navajo Parks and Rec on advertising Tribal

Parks. The Navajo Nation Tourism Department is partially funded by a Navajo Hotel Occupancy

Tax. This tax has also been used for projects within the Tribal Park units such as the new infrastructure at LCRNTP. Through the Navajo Nation Tourism Department, Northern Arizona

University has assisted in studies regarding tourism and visitation to Tribal Park units. The

National Park Service has collaborated in management of several projects with the Navajo

Nation including Canyon de Chelly. In 2018, the Navajo Nation, and the NPS signed a Strategic

Agreement for stewardship of Canyon de Chelly which clarified responsibilities between the parties and outlined a plan for a formal joint management plan for Canyon de Chelly (“A

Strategic Agreement”, 2018). Coconino County partnered with the Navajo Nation to fund new overlooks and interpretive materials at three Navajo Parks and Rec sites through an initiative called Coconino Parks and Open Spaces (Locke, 2017).

This case study has lacked the formal engagement and planning processes used in some of the other case study locations, such as Dasiqox Tribal Park initiative. There have been concerns expressed by community members involved in grazing and ranching because of a lack of clear boundaries at locations such as the Little Colorado River Navajo Tribal Park. This is exemplified in the following quote from a Cameron chapter rancher at an opening ceremony for the newly renovated LCRNTP picnic area:

I asked if we could get a boundary, so we know where the park is and where it’s not.

Because this is where we live and where we ranch,” he said. “We don’t want people

driving everywhere. We don’t appreciate that at all. There are so many people now and

there are going to be more people. (Yerian, 2016: para 11)

Concerns over jurisdictional boundaries were also expressed by the LeChee chapter president in a report to the Resources and Development Committee, “the common boundaries between the

Navajo Nation Northern Tourism Arizona Department University

National Park Service Navajo Nation

Coconino Navajo Nation County Parks and Recreation Department

Figure 17: Navajo Nation Stakeholders

Timeline and Background

In 1931, Canyon de Chelly National Monument was established on land that is wholly owned by the Navajo Nation. Canyon de Chelly is unique as the “only unit in the United States NPS that is entirely non-federally owned, jurisdiction being based on the agreement with the Navajo.”

(Sanders, 1996: 175) Since the designation of Canyon de Chelly National Monument, the Navajo

Nation has requested several times for the return of the canyon to Navajo management (Brugge

& Wilson, 1976; Fonseca, 2008; Sanders, 1996). When the tribe established the Navajo Nation

Parks and Recreation Department in 1957, there were concerns that the federal government would also try to oversee management of areas such as Monument Valley: “in part to note increased non-Navajo visitation and the need to regulate picnicking, camping, and sightseeing at points of interest on the reservation, and in part to stem an increasing fear of further U.S. government takeover of places of great interest on the reservation” (Sanders, 1996: 176). A timeline of important events regarding the Navajo Parks and Rec Department is provided in

Figures 18-20.

Figure 18: Navajo Nation Timeline 1930-1960

Figure 19: Navajo Nation Timeline 1960-1990

Figure 20: Navajo Nation Timeline 1992-Present

Allowable Uses

In the Navajo Parks and Rec Department, access to non-tribal members varies across Tribal Park units. The different Navajo Nation chapters also set regulations regarding visitor access to different trails. For example, the Kaibeto chapter voted to prohibit hiking in certain areas within their jurisdiction, citing the reasoning as: “These closures are due to trespassing across residential areas” (“General Areas”, 2019: para 4). A tour guide is required to enter the popular high-use areas such as Antelope Canyon and Upper part of East Waterholes at LPNTP. Due to volume of visitors to these areas, primarily for photography, the Navajo Nation has implemented a 2-hour visitation limit (Lake Powell Tribal Park, 2019).

In MVNTP, there is a scenic-view road, and certain designated trails which visitors can access without a tribal tour-guide. A backcountry permit is required in addition to the entrance fee to access these trails. There are families living within Monument Valley, restriction of homesite development has been described as limited by water access for drinking and irrigation, not due to regulations imposed by the park designation (Sanders, 1996). There is also a hotel built in MVNTP, The View, which is operated by a private owner. It is unclear what sort of restrictions are in place regarding future development within MVNTP. Hunting is allowed in certain areas of the Tribal Parks, regulations for these activities are set by the Navajo Nation Fish and Wildlife Department (Hunting and Trapping Regulations, 2007).

Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department Allowable Uses Access • Entrance fee required to enter larger parks • Backcountry permit required for non-tribal off-road access • Tour guide required for some high-use areas and hiking off designated trails Allowable Uses • Homesites • Farming and grazing leases • Privately owned hotels • Tour operators • Hunting

Prohibited Uses • Hunting in certain areas. • Climbing sacred rock formations. Table 3: Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department Allowable Uses

Funding Sources

In 1957, when the Navajo National Government established MVNTP and the NNPRD, tribal council appropriated $100,000 of funds from the Navajo Nation to fund the beginning of these projects (Sanders, 1996). Until 1990, funds collected from permits and entrance into the NNPRD maintained Tribal Parks went into the Navajo Nation General Fund. Beginning in 1990, all funds generated by the Navajo Tribal Parks began going into the Parks and Recreation Enterprise Fund

(Tom, 2018c; Sanders, 1996) rather than into the Navajo Nation General Fund. This did not necessarily mean that the NNPRD was financially independent. However, since 2015, the

NNPRD has funded personnel and operations through their Enterprise Fund. According to the

2018 Navajo Nation Office of the Auditor General follow-up report, the NNPRD budget for FY

2017 was $5.5 million (Tom, 2018c).

Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve

The information collected for Thaidene Nene included: 17 newspaper and magazine articles; two presentations released by the communities developing Thaidene Nene; 17 reports and documents by partner organizations; and nine reports and documents released directly from communities and government organizations involved in Thaidene Nene development. There were no interviews gathered for this case study. The Thaidene Nene leadership in the Lutsel K’e

Denesoline First Nation (LKDFN) was approached, they declined to provide an interview. 17 Magazine and newspaper articles about Thaidene Nene. 2 Presentations for public consultation meetings. 17 Reports commissioned by partners to gather information regarding different aspects of Thaidene Nene development. 9 Reports and documents released directly by Parks Canada, The Lutsel K’e Dene, and the Government of Northwest Territories regarding Thaidene Nene. Figure 21: Thaidene Nene Document Review

Geographic Location

Thaidene Nene is located in the Northwest Territories, Canada on the shores of the Great Slave

Lake in the homeland of the LKDFN. The Lutsel K’e community is a fly-in community of 300 people, only accessible by airplane, boat, or snowmobile in winter. The nearest large town is

Yellowknife, NWT 30 miles away along the Great Slave Lake. This 26,376 km2 protected area is comprised of a 14,305 km2 National Park Reserve comanaged between the LKDFN and Parks

Canada with consultation from the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) and the

Northwest Territories Metis Nation (NWTMN) (Figure 22). The rest of the protected area is a territorial park, and a caribou habitat protection area. The protecting legislations for the different areas of the protected area are: 14,305 km2 as Thaidene Nene by Parks Canada under the Canada

National Parks Act, 8,906 km2 by the GNWT under the Territorial Protected Areas Act, and

3,165 km2 under the Wildlife Act (“Critical Path”, 2018). For the purpose of this study the allowable uses, funding and stakeholder relationships regarding the 3,534,834-acre National Park

Reserve were focused on. The allowable uses and relationships for the surrounding territorial park are possibly different, but not explored extensively for this study (Figure 22).

Source: The Nature Conservancy, 2015

Figure 22: Map of the proposed Thaidene Nene

Stakeholder Relationships

In the development of Thaidene Nene, the major parties involved are the four governments involved in negotiations: LKDFN, Parks Canada, GNWT, and NWTMN. These four groups were involved in the visioning and development of Thaidene Nene. Because of their long-term involvement in the protecting of this land, the LKDFN and Parks Canada appear to play a larger role in the decision-making. At the agreement signing ceremony in August 2019, the chief negotiator for the LKDFN said, "What we're doing today is bringing our Crown partners into the

fold,"…"Łutsël K'é has been protecting Thaidene Nëné for a long time now." (Blake, 2019: para

9) This statement reflects a sentiment that the LKDFN are, and should be, the major decision makers in development of Thaidene Nene.

Government of Parks the Northwest Canada Territories

Thaidene Nene National Park

Northwest Lutsel K’e Territories Denesoline Metis Nation

Figure 23: Thaidene Nene Stakeholders

There are many non-profits and project partners involved in addition to these four government groups. The Nature Conservancy is recognized by the LKDFN for providing technical expertise and enabling outdoor education programming for LKDFN youth, as well as helping to fundraise for the Thaidene Nene Fund. Indigenous Leadership Initiative (ILI), and the Canadian Parks and

Wilderness Society (CPAWS) are recognized for contributing to facilitations with external parties and the public to build support. Pure North Canada helped to develop a tourism strategy for the LKDFN. The Ducks Unlimited National Boreal Program is listed on the Thaidene Nene website as a supporting organization (“Partners”, 2019).

The Nature Conservancy Pure North

Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Indigenous Society Leadership Ducks Initiative Unlimited

Figure 24: Thaidene Nene External Partners

Timeline and Background

The timeline began in 1969 with a proposal by Parks Canada to Chief Pierre Catholique of the

LKDFN for the development of a national park in their traditional territory. At the time this proposal was declined by the LKDFN community due to concerns about impacts on the hunting and plant collection lifestyle of the LKDFN (“Timeline”, 2019). Despite lack of community support, Parks Canada took steps in the 1970s and 1980s to preserve 7,304 km2 in this area from resource development under the Territorial Lands Act (“Chronology”, 2017). In 2000, the

LKDFN approached Parks Canada to re-open negotiations regarding a national park in the area

(“Critical Path”, 2018). This decision to reopen negotiations was due to concerns for the conservation of the land following the diamonds and mineral boom of the 1990s in the Great

Slave Lake region (“Timeline”, 2019). A timeline of important events regarding Thaidene Nene is provided below in Figures 25-28.

Figure 25: Thaidene Nene Timeline 1969-2006

Figure 26: Thaidene Nene Timeline 2007-2013

Figure 27: Thaidene Nene Timeline 2014-2015

Figure 28: Thaidene Nene Timeline 2015-Present

Allowable Uses

In pursuing a joint-management agreement with federal and territorial management agencies, access to the land of Thaidene Nene does not hold any restrictions for native or non-native use.

However allowable uses are different between the LKDFN, NWTMN, and the general public.

LKDFN will continue to hunt, fish and use the land as they have for generations. However, hunting for large game will not be allowed by non-indigenous residents of the area and visitors

(Charlwood, 2019). The NWTMN will also still be allowed to hunt and fish and build cabins in the park without a lease (Bird, 2019).

Parks Canada has articulated that there will be more flexibility in allowable uses within

Thaidene Nene than is permitted in other Parks Canada sites such as: “non-aboriginal subsistence activities within the national park reserve, access by snowmobiles for subsistence activities, residents carrying firearms across national park lands, provisions for people to protect themselves from bears.” (“Public Consultation”, 2015: 21) Parks Canada also makes it clear that there will be no entry fees and activities such as collecting wood and building fires would still be allowed to all residents (“Why Here?”, 2017). This choice of language describing that the northern way of life is not being altered is important in gathering regional support for Thaidene

Nene. Concerns have been expressed from some users regarding limitations that a park would put on recreational activities in the area. Many were concerned about the use of guns and the implications on hunting and travel practices (Wohlberg, 2015). The allowable uses demonstrated in the case of Thaidene Nene provide an example of the ways the federal land management organizations may alter or shift their restriction on land-use when partnering with a community.

This co-management partnership has been described as a new model for federal government-

First Nations relationships in Canada (Charlwood, 2019).

Thaidene Nene Allowable Uses Access Co-managed with Parks Canada. No restrictions for tribal or non-tribal access. Allowable Uses • Berry picking/gathering of traditional foods (everyone) • Snowmobiles for subsistence use (everyone) • Hunting (LKDFN and NWTMN) • Residents carrying firearms for bear protection • Collecting wood/fires • Boating and float plane access (everyone) Prohibited Uses • Non-First Nations recreational and guided big game hunting. Table 4: Thaidene Nene Allowable Uses

Funding Sources

In the case of Thaidene Nene, one tool being used for sharing power is a consensus board made up of LKDFN and public governments to make management and operational decisions (“Critical

Path”, 2018). Another mechanism is the Thaidene Nene Trust Fund which established by the

LKDFN and is made up of $15 Million in capital contribution from Parks Canada with another $15 Million from philanthropic donors. The LKDFN describe that they will: “use the income generated by the trust fund to support its management responsibilities and economic opportunities in Thaidene Nene” (“Critical Path”, 2018: 6). Interest from the trust will be used to fund Thaidene Nene programs such as: “First Nation staff and operational requirements for the management and operation of Thaidene Nene, Support the education and training of Lutsel K’e

Denesoline for Thaidene Nene human resource needs, Promote the Dene Way of Life, and Foster a viable tourism economy in Lutsel K’e” (“Thaidene Nene Trust”, 2019: para 2).

Dasiqox Tribal Park (Nexwagwez?an)

The information collected for Dasiqox Tribal Park (Dasiqox) or Nexwagwez?an (Tŝilhqot’in for

“There for Us”) (Figure 29) included 19 newspaper and magazine articles; nine media releases; nine reports published by partner groups or agencies; and ten reports or documents released by the Dasiqox leadership directly. It was not feasible to conduct interviews for this site despite communications directly with the program manager. Interviews were declined but a research agreement was developed, and the program manager shared information and documents regarding the process.

19 Newspaper and magazine articles describing the efforts regarding Dasiqox. 9 Press releases by the Xeni Gwet’in, Yunesit’in First Nations and the Tŝilhqot’in National Government regarding Dasiqox as well as the aboriginal title and rights areas, and the Teztan Biny mining lease case. 9 Reports published by partner non-profits either mentioning Dasiqox or commissioned by the Dasiqox leadership to provide guidance. 10 Documents released by Dasiqox regarding the announcement and planning of Dasiqox. Figure 29: Dasiqox Tribal Park Document Review

Geographic location

The proposed Dasiqox Tribal Park is located 125 km southwest of Williams Lake, British

Columbia and 300 km north of Vancouver, British Columbia (Figure 30). Dasiqox is 300,000 hectares (741,316 acres) of wilderness and wildlife habitat bordering existing Provincial

Protected Areas. The surrounding Provincial Protected Areas are: Nunsti Provincial Park, Big

Creek Provincial Park, South Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park, and Ts’ilʔos Provincial Park.

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada granted the Tŝilhqot’in Nation Aboriginal Title and

Rights to traditional territory in this area. This landmark decision was the first time that the

Supreme Court of Canada has upheld an Aboriginal Title declaration. Not all the proposed

Dasiqox Tribal Park is within Tŝilhqot’in Title and Rights areas according to the 2014 Canadian

Supreme Court decision. The proposed area connects habitat protected within the Provincial

Protected Areas and protects the watersheds of the declared Title and Rights area (McCrory,

Smith, William, Cross, Craighead, 2014).

Source: https://dasiqox.org/about-us/map/

Figure 30: Map of Dasiqox Tribal Park

Stakeholder Relationships

The creation of Dasiqox Tribal Park is an effort being pursued by the Yuneŝit'in and Xeni

Gwet’in communities of the Tsilhqot’in Nation. The initiative is supported by the Tŝilhqot’in

National Government (Figure 31), comprised of six first nations: the Tl’etinqox, Xeni Gwet’in,

Tŝi Deldel, Yuneŝit'in, Tl’esqox, ʔEsdilagh. The relationship being built regarding Dasiqox is part of a larger effort for co-management and collaboration between the Tŝilhqot’in Nation and the Government of British Columbia.

Xeni Gwet’in First Nation

Dasiqox Tribal Park Initiative Tsilhqot’in Nation

Yunesit’in First Nation

Figure 31: Dasiqox Leadership Framework

There are many groups involved in the development of Dasiqox. These groups have provided funding as well as capacity building support. Tides Canada is central to Dasiqox development as it has provided a central location for funding and provides “shared in-house governance and administration expertise” (“Our Story”, 2019: para 4). Other organizations have provided financial support and information. The Firelight Group authored a report: “Priorities and needs for First Nations Establishing Indigenous Protected Areas in British Columbia”. The introduction to this report states the intention is “to identify and address key questions and needs of First

Nations and Indigenous communities interested in establishing Indigenous Protected Areas

(IPAS) or similar stewardship initiatives in Canada, with a focus on British Columbia.” (The

Firelight Group, 2016: 5). The Wilburforce Foundation has provided funding for several projects within the Dasiqox initiative. The David Suzuki Foundation has provided support and produced a report: “Tribal Parks and Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas: Lessons Learned from

B.C. Examples” (Plotkin, 2018) which includes Dasiqox Tribal Park as one of the examples. The funding provided by these groups is expanded upon in the funding sources section below. Other

organizations that have supported the efforts of Dasiqox include: The Valhalla Wilderness

Society, The Wilderness Committee, Friends of the Nemaiah Valley, and The Nature

Conservancy. The support from these groups varies from financial to publicity by advertising the

Dasiqox Initiative and the fight against Prosperity Mine on their websites and in their newsletters.

The Valhalla Wilderness Society Tides Canada Friends of the Nemaiah Valley

Wilderness Dasiqox Tribal Park Initiative The Nature Committee Conservancy

The David The Suzuki Firelight Foundation Group Wilburforce Foundation

Figure 32: Dasiqox External Partners

Timeline and Background

The Dasiqox leadership identifies several reasons for pursuing the creation of a Tribal Park.

There were pressures for development by forest and mining industries and the importance of

Tŝilhqot’in to have control over how their traditional territory is managed (“Position Paper”,

2016; Dasiqox Tribal Park Fact Sheet, 2018). The vision for Dasiqox requires indigenous laws and values to be taken into consideration regarding management of the land (Dasiqox Tribal Park

Fact Sheet, 2018). Pressures for development of forest and mining resources in Tsilhqot’in traditional territory began in 1983 when the logging company, Carrier Lumber, was granted an industrial logging permit by the Government of British Columbia within Tŝilhqot’in territory.

Industrial logging is detrimental to livelihoods of the Tŝilhqot’in (specifically the Xeni Gwet’in

First Nation) who hunt and trap for sustenance. A blockade was set up at bridge cross Tsilhqox

(Chilko) River which would have allowed sole access to logging trucks (Dinwoodie, 2002).

Following this blockade there was a meeting between Tsilhqot’in Government and the

Government of British Columbia at which Premier Halcourt promised there would not be additional logging permits issued without the permission of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation of the

Tŝilhqot’in Nation. This promise was not kept, resulting in the issuance of additional industrial logging permits that led to 25 years of litigation (Rosenberg & Woodward, 2015). This litigation eventually led to the June 26, 2014 Supreme Court of Canada decision to uphold the declared

Aboriginal Title and Rights to traditional territory by the Tsilhqot’in Nation (Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014). A timeline of events is provided in Figures 33-35.

Figure 33: Dasiqox Timeline: 2014-2016

Figure 34: Dasiqox Timeline 2017

Figure 35: Dasiqox Timeline 2018-2019

Allowable Uses

Access to Dasiqox does not require a Tŝilhqot’in guide but guides are encouraged for non-local visitors. The area being set aside as Dasiqox is used by non-first nation residents of the area and surrounding towns for hunting, fishing and recreation. “A tribal park recognizes the fact that you can still live on the land, and make a living from the land, and actually hunt and fish and trap and harvest those resources and it’s still there for the next generation” (Gilchrist, 2016: 18). The Xeni

Gwet’in Community, one of two Tsilhqot’in communities involved in developing Dasiqox describe in their Nemiah Declaration:

That we are prepared to SHARE our Nemiah Aboriginal Wilderness Preserve with non-

natives in the following ways: With our permission visitors may come and view and

photograph our beautiful land; We will issue permits, subject to our conservation rules,

for hunting and fishing within our Preserve; The respectful use of our Preserve by

canoeists, hikers, light campers, and other visitors is encouraged subject to our system of

permits. (Nemiah Declaration, 1989:1)

The main intentions are to limit or manage the extractive operations which are carried out on title land (Plotkin, 2018). Within the Dasiqox Tribal Park boundaries, hunting fishing and recreation are permitted by non-tribal members when carried out in a sustainable and ecologically sustainable way. Hunting and fishing access as well as collection of medicinal plants is central the development of the Tribal Park. “It is a place where we hunt, fish, learn, teach, and share while spending time out on the land respectfully, a place where we feel happy and healthy”

(Community Vision and Management Goals, 2018: 10).

Dasiqox Allowable Uses Access • A tribal guide is not required but is encouraged for non-tribal visitors. • Issues permits for hunting and fishing. • Visitors are encouraged with respectful use. Allowable Uses • Hunting/fishing/trapping • Collection of medicinal plants • Small-scale value-added timber harvest • Motorized vehicles in designated areas • Camping Prohibited Uses • Industrial timber harvest • Resource extraction (mining, oil and gas) Table 5: Dasiqox Allowable Uses

Funding Sources

The funding needs of Dasiqox are diverse in both scope of goals and size. The approach of developing management plans and an extensive collaborative community vision process also requires a variety of funding sources. Long-term goals for Dasiqox include programs such as a guardian officer program and summer youth camps and training. These programs and routine maintenance such as the intended backcountry cabins and access roads will require long-term funding sources.

The Wilberforce Foundation has provided funding for seven projects relating to Dasiqox since 2016 (totaling $415,500 in support) three of those grants went to the Firelight Group for the Dasiqox Tribal Park Management Plan, totaling $117,500 (“Grants Database-Dasiqox”,

2019). Other funding has been provided to Tides Canada for the initiative, as well as funding through Respecting Aboriginal Values and Environmental Needs (RAVEN) the legal case regarding Teztan Biny and the Prosperity Mine proposal. (“Save Teztan Biny”, 2014).

Overview of Case Studies

The five case studies demonstrated high variability. Unlike the federal land management agencies that have a common structure that is generally used across sites with similar designations, there is not one model of Tribal Park development that can be used by Tribes and

First Nations in the United States and Canada. The approaches vary in size, timeline to development, stakeholders, and funding based on the needs and interests of the specific community (Table 6).

Size varies significantly between case studies, ranging from 300 acres at Frog Bay to over 3 million acres at Thaidene Nene. The method of consolidating land for a Tribal Park also varies. FBTNP began with one 90-acre parcel then grew in size by adding small parcels to reach the current land base. UMUTP was designated as a single 125,000-acre historic district. The

Navajo Parks and Rec Department began with the 91,696-acre MVNTP in 1957 and added additional Tribal Park units. In the case of Thaidene Nene the boundaries fluctuated over the years, with a 1,813,753-acre land withdrawal put aside by Parks Canada in 1970, which was reconsidered upon request of the LKDFN in 2005. It was not until 2015 that the four major stakeholders (Parks Canada, LKDFN, GNWT, and NWTMN) agreed upon the final land withdrawal. In the case of Dasiqox, the initial proposed boundaries were based on the 2014

Aboriginal Title and Rights Area; however, landscape connectivity and protection of sacred areas has led to the current 741,316-acre footprint.

The path to establishing the Tribal Parks and their time in existence also varies across case studies. Although the social movement within the Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in First

Nations which led to Dasiqox began long before, the official Dasiqox initiative was announced in 2014 and is still in the planning stage. Though Frog Bay began land acquisition in 2010, and

the park opened to the public in 2012, the Tribal National Park is still evolving. Expansion has continued as the Treaty Natural Resources Division continues to repatriate land parcels. While the steps building toward Thaidene Nene began in 1969, the formal negotiation and planning did not begin until 2000 and the National Park Reserve did not officially open until August 2019.

The process towards UMUTP began in the 1960s, with the UMUTP opening to the public in

1982. In contrast, the case of Navajo Parks and Rec moved more quickly with the department establishment in 1957 followed by MVNTP in 1958.

The three United States case studies (Frog Bay Tribal National Park, Ute Mountain Ute

Tribal Park, and the Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department) are managed as a department of the tribal government and are within reservation boundaries. These three tribes have the authority to vote through tribal council to protect land under a Tribal Park or conservation area label. The two Canadian cases have a more complex land authority system to navigate. Both of the Canadian case studies reviewed have adopted unique models to achieve land protection. Dasiqox is managed independent of the Yunesit’in and Xeni Gwet’in communities with an advisory board of members of the Tsilhqot’in nation. The LKDFN chose to pursue Thaidene Nene development as a co-management endeavor with the federal government because they felt that was the best way to ensure protection of the Thaidene Nene area.

There are a variety of funding mechanisms for the Tribal Park model. Funding for management within the NNPRD comes from the Parks and Recreation Enterprise Fund. This is significant because the NNPRD does not rely on the tribal general fund for funding daily operations. Both

UMUTP and FBTNP receive funding from council appropriation for daily operations. This can be challenging because the Tribal Parks are subject to changing support with tribal council elections. Also, tribal funds are in high demand for meeting the needs of tribal populations,

making acquiring funds for infrastructure improvements necessary for a successful Tribal Park

challenging (Braun, 2008). Dasiqox management has referenced the necessity of keeping the

financial responsibility of Dasiqox separate from the Tsilhqot’in Nation communities as a reason

for developing Dasiqox as an external non-profit. Meanwhile, Thaidene Nene the LKDFN has

established a $30 million trust fund, the interest and investment revenue of which will be used

for the LKDFN management responsibilities within Thaidene Nene.

Frog Bay Tribal Ute Mountain Navajo Nation Thaidene Nene Dasiqox Tribal National Park Ute Tribal Park Parks and National Park Park Recreation Reserve Department Size and 300 Acres 125,000 Acres 5 parks 3,534,842 Acres 741,316 Acres Location Northwestern Southwestern Northeastern Northwest Southcentral Wisconsin, USA Colorado, USA Arizona, USA Territories, Canada B.C., Canada Path to 2010-land 1972-National 1957- 2001-discussions 2014-Tribal Park Establishment acquisition Historical Establishment began between initiative began 2012- District of NNPRD Parks Canada and announced Tribal National designated LKDFN 2019-TN Park opened to 1981-Open to established public the public Management Managed by Managed as a NNPRD is a National Park Initiative of the Treaty Natural division of the department Reserve Xeni Gwet’in Resources Tribal under the Comanaged by and Yunesit’in Division of Government. Natural Parks Canada and First Nations of Tribal Resources LKDFN with the Tsilhqot’in Government. Division of agreements with Nation as a non- Navajo National NWTMN and the profit on the Government. GNWT. Tides Canada platform. Funding Land acquisition Maintenance Funding for Parks Canada: Variety of from GLRI funding from daily operations establishment and funding sources- grants and tribal tribal funds. and personnel infrastructure- Donations funds- comes from interest and managed through maintenance NNPRD investment income the Tides Canada from tribal enterprise fund- from Thaidene platform. funds. from entrance Nene Trust will fees and fund LKDFN permits. management. Table 6: Overview Case Study Characteristics

Role of Tourism and Economic Development

Frog Bay Tribal National Park

Tourism does not appear to be a major component of the Frog Bay model. There is no mention of tourism on the webpage advertising the Tribal Park nor in the Treaty Natural Resources

Division mission statement (Frog Bay Tribal National Park, 2019). Planning documents for Frog

Bay do not include a tourism development plan or economic development plan. The Great Lakes

Inter-Tribal Council “Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Report” presents economic development strategies for the 11 recognized tribes of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan.

This report describes Red Cliff as one of the reservations not located close to a population center or tourist destination and therefore, the tourism market for that area is not projected to grow significantly (Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, 2016).

Despite the lack of formal plans for economic development from tourism to Frog Bay, the Tribal Park is advertised and mentioned in materials developed by Red Cliff tourism division as well as tourism businesses in the region and state. For example, the Red Cliff Band Tourism

Division advertises Frog Bay on their webpage, boasting about “miles of hiking trails”

(“Tourism”, 2019). At the regional tourism level, Bayfield County incorporates Frog Bay into the “Bayfield County Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan” survey of existing outdoor recreation facilities. This plan recommends that actions to improve outdoor recreation access in

Frog Bay are additional shoreline access and expansion of the park through further land acquisition by the Red Cliff Band (Bayfield County, 2015). Frog Bay is also listed in the

Bayfield County Visitor and Recreation Guide as one of the six natural areas to visit in Bayfield

County (Bayfield County, 2019). At the state tourism industry level, Frog Bay Tribal National

Park won the 2019 Governor’s Tourism Award for Stewardship. In the award announcement the benefits to tourism dispersion by Frog Bay was described as:

Many tourists visit the Bayfield Peninsula and Apostle Islands area on an annual basis,

but the area lacks sufficient mainland trail systems to support the number of tourists

seeking outdoor recreation opportunities. FBTNP provides an additional outdoor

recreational activity that is likewise unique due to its location on tribal lands. (“Red

Cliff’s Frog Bay”, 2019: para 2)

There is no entrance station or fee collection to access Frog Bay and no visitation study has been conducted, so visitation and the level to which Frog Bay brings visitors to the area is unknown.

There is a donation kiosk located by the comfort station at beginning of the trail system.

According to Red Cliff Treaty Natural Resources Division annual report to the Bureau of Indian

Affairs in 2017 Frog Bay received only $1,000 in donations from visitors to the park (Treaty

Natural Resources Division, 2018).

Newspaper articles describing Frog Bay illustrate both the scenery and the uniqueness of the Tribal National Park designation. For example, this description in the Lake Superior

Magazine highlights both: “The 87 acres at Frog Bay in Wisconsin recently designated as a park offer views of five Apostle Islands, pristine sandy beaches at the top of Bayfield Peninsula and a rare opportunity for the public to visit tribally owned and protected lands” (“A New Shoreline

Tribal Park”, 2012: para 1). This article in the Chicago Tribune focuses on the unique designation:

Frog Bay is a tribal national park, so it is not part of the U.S. national park system but

rather under the jurisdiction of the Red Cliff Band. But it is unusual because though it is,

in fact, tribal land, it is nevertheless open to anyone and everyone to share in its beauty.

Thus, Frog Bay is being touted as the first "national" park of its kind, while also giving a

nod to the Chippewa Nation. (Revolinski, 2012: para 5)

There is no mention of the possibility of non-tribal members using Red Cliff tour guides either to access the FCCMA, or for interpretive hikes through the Frog Bay area now or in the future.

There are Tribal Park rangers employed under the Treaty Natural Resources Division. Trail and bridge building as well as maintenance and upkeep are provided by Treaty Natural Resources

Division employees. This department also operates tours and work parties for groups interested in participating in the management of Frog Bay.

Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park

Tourism and economic development opportunities for the community are major drivers of the

UMUTP model. Although the UMUTP has no formal vision statement or mission, creating jobs for the Ute Mountain Ute community through tourism has been present in documents describing the UMUTP since the park’s development. In addition to no formal vision statement or management plan, the Ute Mountain Ute tribe does not have a tourism department or economic development plan in place. The economic development opportunities for the Ute Mountain Ute have been described as: “oil and gas from the San Juan basin, and ‘a spectacular extension of major archaeological ruins of the Mesa Verde type’” (Dutton, 1975: 7). The UMUTP has been described as an alternative to the present oil and gas extraction which has driven Ute Mountain

Ute rural economy since 1950s (Carroll, 2014). One report attributes the development of

UMUTP to the tribe’s realization of tourism as a potential economic avenue in the 1960s

(Torres-Reyes, 1970). However, the revenue appears to be minimal. Although this estimate is dated, in March-July of 1987 revenues amounted barely over $10,000 (Young, 1997). Accounts

of employees at UMUTP vary by source, one account says there are “up to twenty-five people in the summer, five in the winter” (Burnham, 2000: 265).

Newspaper articles written about UMUTP describe an intentionally primitive and intimate experience of the Ancient Pueblo ruins as opposed to the crowded and developed experience provided at neighboring Mesa Verde National Park. An article in Indian Country

Today describes UMUTP as: “Ute Mountain Tribal Park is a tourists' dream” and as an alternative to the crowding of Mesa Verde NP, “What do you do if you want to skip the teeming masses? Consider a visit to the Ute Mountain Tribal Park” (Steinberger, 2014: para

1). A similar description of a primitive and remote experience was described in the New

York Times in the early years of the UMUTP. This article attributes part of the choice for primitive ambiance in UMUTP to the tribe’s financial situation and lack of ability to build visitor use areas like Mesa Verde. “So why try? Why not let visitors become explorers, guided through the unspoiled land by trained Indian guides, both men and women?” (Lavender, 1979: para 6) the author also talks about the uniqueness of the Tribal Park, “The new Ute Park is different. Shaggy and remote, it will not suit everyone” (Lavender, 1979: para 26).

That “why try?” attitude is echoed and described as being intentional by a tour guide for the UMUTP: “There have been efforts by past directors to advertise the park and bring in more visitors, but he and other longtime tribal park staff members are more inclined to keep the park under the radar” (Cowan, 2013: para 19). In the same article, the park director describes the appeal of the primitive experience provided in UMUTP: “Without paved sidewalks, tour-bus turnoffs and interpretive signs, the experience gains a realness and a rawness that makes the years separating modern tourists and the ancestral Puebloans seem to slip away” (Cowan, 2013: para 5). The unique experience of UMUTP is again portrayed in 2014, “Since the Ute Mountain

Ute Tribe operates the park as a primitive area, the sites remain in unspoiled natural surroundings that still resemble the wilderness that the ancestral Puebloan people and historic Ute Nation knew” (Steinberger, 2014: para 4).

Guiding is a major aspect of the UMUTP model. Visitors are not allowed to enter the

Tribal Park without a Ute guide. The requirement of a tribal tour guide for entrance into the

UMUTP by non-Ute visitors fills the role of an entrance fee. There is a primitive campground within the UMUTP, visitors staying at this campground may receive a pass from the visitor center to allow them access into the park (Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park, 2018). Visitors are expected to drive their own vehicles into the park (following the guide) on a gravel road. Access to sites in the park is described as 40 miles on a dirt road from the visitor center to one area

(Lion Canyon Trailhead) so four-wheel drive and a full tank of gasoline are necessary

(Roberts, 2011). In addition to the Tribal Park tour guides, there are trips provided by limited concessionaires with permission (“Ute Mountain Tribal Trip”, 2013).

Visitation is not formally recorded, and estimates vary but remain low compared to neighboring Mesa Verde National Park. A UMUTP guide estimates visitation at between 2,000 and 3,000 people a year (Cowan, 2013), compared to Mesa Verde’s 460,237 visitors in 2013

(“Visitation Statistics”, 2019). A National Geographic article describes visitation as: “The Ute

Mountain Tribal Park doesn’t keep an annual visitor tally, but I doubt that it reaches 3,000. As a result, you can spend a whole day examining magnificent ruins without distraction” (Roberts,

2011: para 23). One article attributes low visitation to UMUTP as due to requiring a Ute guide to enter ruins: “To visit the ruins of Lion Canyon today, as we did, you must make a reservation, pay a fee, and be accompanied by a Ute guide. This relatively easy transaction, however, either scares off park-bagging tourists or never crosses their radar” (Roberts, 2011: para 21).

Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department

The Navajo Parks and Rec Department is the most developed case study in the area of economic development and tourism. These Tribal Parks receive many visitors every year and have a fee program in place to capture revenue from these visitors. The two largest and most visited Tribal

Park units in the Navajo Parks and Rec Department are LPNTP and MVNTP.

In MVNTP management reported over 400,000 visitors in FY 2016, reported revenue in

MVNTP for that year was $4,136,885 from entrance fees and commercial tour/vending permits

(Tom, 2018a). In Monument Valley employment by the NNPRD department within MVNTP is limited compared to the employment provided by “The View” hotel and commercial guiding opportunities. In 2017 “The View” reported employing 20 people during the peak tourism season

(“Navajo Hotel Owners”, 2015) while MVNTP employs ten permanent year-round personnel and hires additional temporary employees during their peak season (Tom, 2018a). The MVNTP audit report (2018) says there were 28 guiding operators in MVNTP in FY 2016.

One of the primary tourism draws of MVNTP relates back to iconic Hollywood westerns, including Clint Eastwood and John Ford (Reynolds, 2013). Events held at MVNTP include a hot air balloon gathering (Allen, 2015), and a 13-mile dirt road bike race and Navajo Parks foot race series organized in partnership with the organization, Navajo YES (“Events”, 2019).

Infrastructure within the park is relatively limited and the experience is less commercialized than

National Park Service experiences, “You should know, however, that this is no national park.

Instead of the National Park Service infrastructure, you will find a 17-mile dirt road looping around the valley's most admired landmarks” (Reynolds, 2013: para 8).

LPNTP has 11 tour operators working in the Tribal Park, in addition to a helicopter tour company (“Tour operators, 2019). The Navajo Tax commission reported that tour operators in

LPNTP grossed $15.7 Million in FY2016. (Tom, 2018d). Revenue from entrance fees and permits were reported at $6,324,670 for FY2016 (Tom, 2018d). This Tribal Park unit employs six permanent year-round personnel with additional seasonal employees during the peak season of March to October (Tom, 2018d). The primary draw for this tribal park unit is photography at sites such as the iconic Rainbow Bridge rock formation, and slot canyons such as Antelope

Canyon.

The smaller Tribal Parks and campgrounds also contribute revenue and employment opportunities to the NNPRD. LCRNTP employs five permanent year-round employees as well as additional employees during the peak season (Tom, 2018b). Although there are almost as many permanent employees at this tribal park as LPNTP, there is not the added employment of tour guides that is present at LPNTP. At the Four Corners Monument an entrance fee of $5 is collected. At Bowl Canyon Recreation Area revenue is collected from camping and picnicking permits ($15 per day for camping and day-use).

Many of the Navajo Parks and Rec Tribal Park units also provide opportunities for local vendors to sell crafts and food items. The demonstration center at Four Corners Monument is one example. Other tribal parks have space for vendors to set up stands, for example in LCRNTP there is a new paved area in the parking lot intended to “create a more conducive environment for local sellers” (The Navajo Nation, 2019: 2).

The Navajo Nation is expansive, and the impacts of tourism on chapters of the Navajo

Nation appear to be isolated to where the Tribal Park is located. For example, in a land-reform study conducted in 2017, members of the Shonto Community described needs for “parks, stores, vehicle services, museums for tourists.” Further, some communities are expressing basic needs for: “Public safety, fast-food, retailer, parks, vehicle services, and tourism are the main things

mentioned by the community members. The communities recognize the potential of tourism and how it can relate to the development of the communities’ services and jobs.” (Dine Policy

Institute, 2017: 53). Even in chapters located close in proximity to heavily used Navajo Nation

Tribal Park units, there is an identified need for further development of tourism and hospitality industries. For example, in 2017 the LeChee chapter (near LPNTP) filed a report with the resource and development committee regarding concerns that the Navajo Nation Parks and

Recreation Department for having a lack of planning in place to sufficiently capture tourism dollars (“Plan unclear”, 2017).

Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve

The involved parties describe different tourism goals for Thaidene Nene, but all view the designation of the National Park Reserve as an economic benefit to the region through increased tourism. The importance of accepting visitors is present in the vision statement developed by the

LKDFN for Thaidene Nene, “the Lutsel K’e Denesoline have the responsibility to act as stewards of the land and as host to visitors.” (Backgrounder, 2013: 2) Chief Dora Enzoe of the

LKDFN wrote an opinion piece arguing for development of a park reserve because it is more than just protection of the land and culture. Thaidene Nene is developing sustainable jobs for the people of LKDFN: “jobs that will help us remain in the home we have had for centuries; jobs that will reduce the 70% unemployment rate that our community of 375 people now experiences and provide us with healthy ways to make a living and contribute to Canada’s future” (Enzoe,

2013: para 3).

The GNWT has an ambitious 5-year tourism development plan which includes plans for strengthening capacity of aboriginal cultural tourism in the Northwest Territories. In the 2015

GNWT Tourism Strategy, the goal was to increase the value of the tourism industry by $130

Million by 2015. The tourism benefits of Thaidene Nene are seen as a way to meet these goals,

“Emphasis on the growing aboriginal tourism sector and associated cultural tourism products and facilities. Thaidene Nene offers unparalleled opportunities in this regard” (Business Case, 2013:

3). Parks Canada has explained their reasoning for why Thaidene Nene will be a successful tourism venture are the wilderness characteristics of the area which attracts visitors every year and the proximity to Yellowknife which makes this proposed National Park Reserve more accessible than other northern parks (“Frequently Asked Questions”, 2015).

The LKDFN explores the tourism benefits of Thaidene Nene in the business case developed which outlines potential economic benefits to the community of creating a National

Park Reserve. In a 2018 “critical path to establishment” presentation to the Standing Committee of Economic Development and Environment, the proposed jobs to be created were estimated as,

“Initial direct employment in Lutsel K'e resulting from Thaidene Nene will be 18 positions, including at least 8 full-time jobs” (“Critical Path”, 2018: 5). There is also description of

“investments in major capital projects within Thaidene Nene could be in the range of 12 million during the first 12 years of operation (with an initial focus on building the visitor center/admin offices)” (Wilkinson, 2013: 6). This document presents the position that not partnering with

Parks Canada on Thaidene Nene would eliminate an investment and driver of tourism that could not be made up for with local or territorial efforts:

These gains will not be realized without the designation of Thaidene Nene as a protected

area and provision for joint management between Lutsel K’e and Parks Canada.

Partnering with Parks Canada creates unique employment and training, national branding

and promotion, and tourism opportunities for the community and the region as a whole.

(Wilkinson, 2013:10)

The LKDFN have also explored the community goals and interests regarding tourism development. Overall the community shared “real passion and enthusiasm for sustainable tourism in Lutsel K’e and Thaidene Nene and a wish for local ownership and operation of tourism businesses” (Pure North Canada, 2013:7).

The significance to visitors of having a conservation area with involvement and interpretation by the local First Nations has been presented as a major aspect of the Thaidene

Nene model: "We know that when visitors come to a place like Thaidene Nene, they will see the scenic beauty of the place, the peaceful nature and the live energy and spirit and the soul. What they will remember is their interaction with the indigenous people" (Chief negotiator Steven

Nitah quoted in Galloway, 2015:para 12).

The importance of conserving land both to preserve the LKDFN way of life and for economic development in the community through tourism is described in a brochure created by

LKDFN:

By protecting nature’s beauty and balance of life and with Lutsel K’e as the gateway to

Thaidene Nene, we will create sustainable jobs and economic development based on

tourism and conservation. Permanent protection will enable us to offer amazing visitor

experiences to others from far and wide, keep our culture strong, and secure our future

for many generations to come (Thaidene Nene Brochure, 2013:2).

The estimated current visitation to the Thaidene Nene area is 500 people a year. Parks Canada estimates that this will increase some. There will be a monitoring of visitor use through a registration program (Thaidene Nene Environmental Assessment, 2019).

Dasiqox Tribal Park

Tourism and sustainable livelihoods are central components of the Dasiqox Tribal Park model.

One of the pillars in the Community Vision and Management Goals document within the category of sustainable livelihoods is “Cultural and ecological tourism, outdoor recreation opportunities are built and include other entrepreneurial ventures” (Nexwagwez?an: Community

Vision and Management Goals, 2018:45). This is identified as including guiding, employment of community members, building trails and cabins for use in the backcountry by community members, work crews, and conservation officers (Nexwagwez?an: Community Vision and

Management Goals, 2018). In the Community Visions and Management Goals document, there is also a call for capacity building regarding training of community members as conservation officers: “Capacity is built for long term employment for community conservation officers and guardian monitors” (Nexwagwez?an: Community Vision and Management Goals, 2018:45). In interviews for articles and documents regarding the process, intentions for tourism development have been highlighted: “Eco-tourism is part of the long-term vision for the park” (Gilchrist,

2016:19). One of the leading forces in the Dasiqox initiative and a chief of the Yunesit’in First

Nation, Chief Russell Myers-Ross shares that:

‘The biggest priority from my community was cultural tourism, and trying to figure out

ways to get people into showcasing the lands that we have’ he says. ‘For the most part, it

hasn’t had a lot of human activity in the area. I can’t really fully describe it. It’s a

beautiful place. And we want to keep it that way’ (Jang, 2017:para 33).

Currently, access to Dasiqox does not require a Tŝilhqot’in guide, but is encouraged for non- local visitors. A permitting system will be used as a tool for monitoring visitation. There is no documentation on current visitation or tourism in Dasiqox because the park is still in the

developing and planning stage. The beginning steps of a conservation officers program is presented in the stationing of uniformed Title Rangers at entry points to the Declared Title Area by the Xeni Gwet’in National Government: “Roles of the Rangers center around conservation, ensuring both natural and cultural assets are protected and maintained, as well as helping visitors enjoy and understand the area” (Tŝilhqot’in National Government, 2016:para 3). Although it is likely that there will be overlap between Title Rangers and guardian monitors within Dasiqox, the scope and extent of this overlap is not yet determined.

The Xeni Gwet’in First Nation have a “Sustainable Tourism Protocol Agreement” signed in 2003 with the Chilko Resort and Community Association regarding lodges within the

Tŝilhqot’in aboriginal territory. “The objectives of this Sustainable Tourism Protocol are to enhance working relationships between the Xeni Gwet’in and the Chilko Resort and Community

Association and to develop or enhance initiatives aimed at environmental protection and generating sustainable tourism opportunities” (Sustainable Tourism Protocol, 2003:2). The signing of the agreement by tourism operators is encouraged by the Xeni Gwet’in as a gesture of goodwill regarding collaborative tourism development. There is not a documented reason why a lodge might decide not to sign the protocol. It is also unclear at this point how tourism operators who have not signed the tourism protocol will be impacted by the Supreme Court Affirmation of

Aboriginal Title and Rights. The lodges and tourism businesses operated under the “Sustainable

Tourism Protocol” would be allowed to maintain activities, which are aligned with the goals and intentions of Dasiqox.

Comparison of Tourism and Economic Development Across Case Studies

Benefits of tourism for rural communities include economic opportunities (Carr et al., 2016) and possibilities for movement away from a resource extractive economy (Butler & Hinch, 2007).

The role of tourism and economic development in Tribal Park development varies across the case studies. Table 7 compares tourism and economic development components across case studies. While some case studies have highly developed systems in place to capture revenue from tourism, others appear to be addressing tourism as a secondary aspect of the Tribal Park.

Frog Bay is the case study with the least mention of economic development opportunities as a goal of the Tribal Park. This is demonstrated in the lack of an entrance fee, guiding program, tourism planning, or mention of tourism in the mission statement. In contrast, the Navajo Parks and Rec department represents the case study with the most developed tourism and economic development model through revenue collected from entrance fees and backcountry permits within the Tribal Park units. Though the Navajo Parks and Rec department has the most developed model for capturing revenue from tourism, there are some weaknesses in the planning of this site for sustainable tourism development.

Tourism marketing and the desired experience is varied across the Tribal Parks. The

Navajo Parks and Rec and the UMUTP advertise a visitor experience that is more rustic than neighboring NPS managed sites. This type of visitor experience can in part be attributed to limited resources for tourism development compared to the NPS (Lavender, 1979). The description of a “trip back in time” presented in UMUTP in particular reflects a common theme in the cultural tourism literature. The interests of the cultural tourist are often based in a nostalgia for the past, and interest in being transported to a time and culture in the past (Chhabra, Healy, &

Sills, 2003; Taylor, 2001). Researchers have also suggested that as cultural tourism grows as a main-stream tourism market worldwide, there will be increased interest in bottom-up, locally organized cultural tourism experiences such as those provided at these case study locations

(Richards, 2014).

100

In the cases of Thaidene Nene and Dasiqox, though it is early in the process, the importance of supporting a sustainable local economy is central. Both Thaidene Nene and

Dasiqox are targeting a high-paying, low impact eco-tourism market. Especially in the cases of

Thaidene Nene and Dasiqox, the type of tourism experience being advertised could be described as ‘Dual Track’ tourism where visitors desire outdoor experiences such as wildlife viewing in tandem with a desire for traditional cultural activities (Kutzner & Wright, 2010). This is in line with the literature which highlights increases in rural tourism branding which has been connected to natural and cultural conservation efforts in rural indigenous tourism destinations (Polo Pena et al., 2013). Another term being used to describe a combination of nature and cultural experiences in tourism destinations is eco-cultural tourism (Tiberghien et al., 2017)

Frog Bay does not advertise much regarding tourism; however, descriptions of Frog Bay by other groups highlight the significance of increased access to protected Lake Superior shoreline. The combination of providing an opportunity for visitors to experience a Tribal

National Park as well as visiting protected Lake Superior shoreline represents another example of eco-cultural tourism.

Tourism is only a pillar in the vision statement or mission of Thaidene Nene and

Dasiqox. The UMUTP does not have a mission statement, the Red Cliff Treaty Natural

Resources Division mission focuses on ecological conservation and cultural benefits, and the

Navajo Parks and Rec mission focuses on ecological conservation and cultural wellbeing.

Missions and Vision statements of non-profit and environmental organizations are used to identify the basic purpose of the organization. In this study, mission and vision statements are significant in analyzing the goals of each Tribal Park because they identify the purpose of a project and the future that project is working towards (Schmidt, 1999).

101

In the context of community-based cultural tourism development, the importance of involving community members in the planning process regarding tourism development has been identified as central to the community members receiving the benefits of tourism (Salazar, 2012).

Additionally, social empowerment has been identified as a possible outcome from cultural tourism due to exercising indigenous control over the land and resources (Whitford & Ruhanen,

2016; Whitney-Squire, 2016). Thaidene Nene and Dasiqox are the only Tribal Park case studies with plans in place regarding tourism. Dasiqox’s Community Vision and Management Goals document extensively explores community visions for economic development opportunities within the proposed area (Community Vision and Management Goals, 2018). In Thaidene Nene, a sustainable tourism strategy was developed using input from community members regarding what they would like to see regarding tourism in their community. The LKDFN also have an indigenized code of conduct which outlines community member expectations for visitors

(Holmes et al., 2016).

Cases such as UMUTP with no community agreed upon management plans in place for tourism and economic development could be in a vulnerable situation if tourism demand were to increase dramatically. Community-based tourism development plans are important to ensuring that socioeconomic benefits of tourism are realized by the community (Okazaki, 2008). A lack of community-based tourism planning can result in degradation of ecosystems due to increased visitation and traffic (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016) in addition to the commodification of culture

(Pettersson & Viken, 2007; Shepherd, 2002).

Entrance fees and permits were used as the monitoring tool for visitation in Navajo Parks and Rec and UMUTP. Monitoring visitation is crucial to understanding use of an area and preparing for impacts of this use (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016). Intentions for monitoring at

102

Thaidene Nene and Dasiqox are to monitor use and impacts from visitation using indigenous guardian programs. Thaidene Nene will also have a visitor check-in system (Thaidene Nene

Environmental Assessment, 2019). The key to sustainable tourism is monitoring tourism impacts and using adaptive processes to minimize impacts to the community and landscape (Hunter,

1997). Monitoring is especially important in culturally significant areas to mitigate impacts such as degradation of cultural and scenic values (Archer et al., 2005). Indicators of change are important to monitoring impacts of tourism and avoiding shifting baselines (Butler et al., 1998;

White et al., 2006). None of the case studies used appear to have indicators in place. Without indicators, cases like Navajo Parks and Rec department that rely on tourism as a large part of the

Tribal Park model is in a reactionary position rather than proactive when managing the impacts of visitation on the Navajo Nation (Halne’e, 2019).

All of the case studies have some kind of program in place to increase the capacity and skills of community members. Capacity-building and skills development has been identified as a crucial outcome of economic development projects in rural communities (De Beer & Marias,

2005). Guiding has been recognized as one tool to encourage community benefits from tourism enterprises (Suntikul, 2007). Guides are used by several case studies as a way to ensure community members receive jobs in the Tribal Park. Both Navajo Nation Parks and Rec and

UMUTP require guides for most access. In the case of the UMUTP this may be in part due to concerns for degradation of sacred and sensitive areas by visitors. The use of guides to mitigate undesired impacts of visitors on the landscape has been identified in past research (Ormsby &

Mannle, 2006; Randall & Rollins, 2009).

Another benefit of guides for tourism enterprises is transfer of ecological and cultural knowledge of the area to visitors (Ormsby & Mannle, 2006). In Thaidene Nene and Dasiqox, the

103

guardian programs can provide the opportunity for tribal members to work on conservation projects and provide interpretation to visitors. These indigenous guardian programs are growing in prevalence in Canada encouraged by the Canadian Government setting aside funding to encourage ongoing stewardship programs through indigenous guardian programs nationwide

(Indigenous Guardians Program, 2019). These indigenous guardian programs have been compared to the Australian indigenous land and sea management programs which combine visitor interpretation with management of natural resources in indigenous protected areas (Hill,

Pert, Davies, Walsh, & Falco-Mammone, 2013).

Based on the reviewed case studies, the success of Tribal Parks to be used as a tool for economic development appears to be varied. This is partially demonstrated through the ability for the Tribal Park to employ community members and achieve financial independence from

Tribal government or First Nations leadership. In cultural tourism literature, the ability of tourism to provide long-term economic development opportunities for the community has been questioned due to the inconsistent profit and seasonality of many tourism destinations (Butler,

2001; Cuccia & Rizzo, 2011; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016). Navajo Parks and Rec and UMUTP, the two case studies that focus most heavily on tourism as a major component of the Tribal Park model reflect this seasonal tourism concern.

In community-based cultural tourism, the importance of community-led planning rather than top-down tourism development is central to communities realizing the benefits of tourism

(Salazar, 2012). Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene identified developing tourism and a conservation area as one component of fostering sustainable livelihoods for community members. Programs in place to facilitate community members benefit from tourism is another important component of economic development (Ormsby & Mannle, 2006). These programs include requiring tour

104

guides for entrance (UMUTP and Navajo Parks and Rec) and developing indigenous guardian

programs (Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene). These programs can also support monitoring of impacts

which is crucial to ensuring that tourism does not negatively impact the Tribes and First Nations

creating Tribal Parks (Hunter, 1997; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016). However, monitoring appears

to be somewhat limited across the case studies.

Role of Tourism and Economic Development Frog Bay Ute Navajo Thaidene Dasiqox Tribal Mountain Nation Parks Nene Tribal National Ute and National Park Park Tribal Recreation Park Initiative Park Department Reserve Tourism a pillar in the vision X X statement/mission? Tourism plans in place? X X Visitation documented? X X X Entrance fees/ use-permits required? X X Programs in place to increase economic capacity of community members (i.e. guardian training X X X X X programs, tribal park rangers, business training) Guide required for visitor access X X Table 7: Role of Tourism and Economic Development

105

Role of Cultural Benefits

Frog Bay Tribal National Park

There were two main themes regarding cultural benefits which were prevalent through all documents discussing Frog Bay. The first was access for tribal members to lands for traditional activities such as hunting and gathering of medicinal and culturally significant plants. The second theme was exercising tribal sovereignty and power over land management decisions.

Frog Bay does not have a mission statement, but the Red Cliff Treaty Natural Resources

Department mission statement reflects conserving lands for the enjoyment of tribal members:

“ensuring that our future generations continue to enjoy the benefits of those places that are of significant historical, cultural, and environmental importance.” (Treaty Natural Resources

Division, 2019:para 1)

The development of Frog Bay has increased access to traditional foods for tribal members in the form of planting wild rice beds in estuaries that had historically hosted wild rice

(Treaty Natural Resources Division Newsletter, 2017), as well as access to land on the reservation for gathering of traditional materials such as cedar (Interview Transcript, 2018).

The frequency that the importance of access for tribal members to land for activities of

“cultural significance” is mentioned in documents and the interview demonstrates the significance of this Tribal Park designation in giving access to community members. For example, in the 2012 Treaty Natural Resources Division newsletter the intention of Frog Bay is to “set up the Frog Bay property as a national park that would be open for tribal and non-tribal members to enjoy, as well as for the tribe to use the area for medicinal plant gathering, educational opportunities, and spiritual ceremonies” (Treaty Natural Resources Division

106

Newsletter, 2012:12). In 2017, a Red Cliff Band Newsletter announced the addition of the second privately owned parcel to the FCCMA. A council chairman is quoted saying:

With the Frog Creek Conservation Management Area's preserved designation, allowable

uses include hiking, wildlife viewing, activities of cultural significance, spiritual

ceremonies and quiet enjoyment by tribal members. Activities of cultural significance by

tribal members include the customary subsistence practices of hunting, fishing and

gathering. (Treaty Natural Resources Division Newsletter, 2017:14)

The role of Frog Bay as a way for tribal members to exercise tribal sovereignty by repatriating land is exemplified in statements like this one: "Land, just like our culture and language, was stolen from us. The more land we can bring back to our people, the stronger the connection becomes to who we really are” (Red Cliff Tribal Newsletter, 2017: para 21 ). The choice to protect additional parcels within Frog Bay under the zoning ordinance as “Preserved” and not pursue a conservation easement through a third party was described by the Treaty Natural

Resources Administrator as a conscious choice for the tribe to exercise their sovereignty: “Which is good, I mean letting the tribe exercise their own sovereignty in that respect, they are the ones protecting it, they don’t have to have a third party come in and confirm that it is being protected.” (Interview Transcript, 2018)

The importance of developing Frog Bay to regain the land base has been highlighted in the media. For example, in an article about the development of Frog Bay: “For now, though, the park - albeit small - is a huge step toward "repatriating" reservation property that has been lost or sold off over the past century and is no longer in tribal hands.” (Clark, 2012: para 9) Another article echoes the importance of repatriation to tribal sovereignty:

107

Returning this parcel of land to the care of the Red Cliff Band is the beginning of

repatriating a reservation which was piecemealed by the destructive policies of allotment.

It is a point of pride for the Red Cliff Band to be able to bring this valuable property back

into the public domain - to dedicate a space where ecological boundaries are defined by

nature. (Casper, n.d: para 8)

Frog Bay also provides an avenue for the Red Cliff Band to interpret their culture to visitors. In the materials provided at Frog Bay, there is a focus on the Ojibwe language and connection to the land. For example, there are four interpretive signs along the trails in the park, each sign highlights the Ojibwe name for the place or item followed by the English name. On the shoreline the sign provides a description of the Apostle Islands visible from that point on the shore, with the Ojibwe names for those islands (Interview Transcript, 2018).

Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park

In the UMUTP case study there is no vision statement or mission to identify the importance of prioritizing culture benefits. There is also no evidence of community engagement in the planning process or protections of culturally significant areas. However, pride over acting as caretakers for the ruins, and exercising sovereignty over land-base are prevalent in documentation regarding the park. One example of pride over caretaking is presented in this quote from a past Tribal Park director:

We want to complement the National Park Service at Mesa Verde, with a primitive,

private park experience and native Ute tour guides. We’re not just taking care of the park,

we’re caretakers of the park. It’s not just another job. Somewhere deep down inside, the

Anasazi is happy we’re taking care of the ruins. (Trimble, 1993:313)

108

The description of a sense of pride produced by the UMUTP is also presented in this quote: “The tribal park’s rich prehistory and low number of visitors offered an alternative to bustling Mesa

Vere immediately north. While not lucrative, the tribal park provides employment and, perhaps most important, a sense of pride to the Wiminuches” (Keller & Turek, 1998: 41). Pride over the caretaker responsibility is also presented in this quote regarding the cultural conservation efforts within UMUTP, “The tribe is proud of its excursion into cultural conservation. House explains that since agencies like the BLM don’t have the money to protect sites on public land, the Ute are glad to have the chance” (Burnham, 2000:264).

In the creation of the Tribal Park, the Ute Mountain Ute were successful in holding on to land base that was under pressure by the National Park Service. In the book “Indian Country,

Gods Country” Philip Burnham (2000) says that in some ways the creation of the Ute Mountain

Tribal Park has helped to create some equilibrium between the Ute Mountain and the NPS. There has also been capacity building through training for employment as guides and in restoration efforts, working projects stabilizing the ruins and documenting artifacts.

Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department

The mission of the NNPRD is to “protect, preserve and manage tribal parks, monuments and recreation areas for the perpetual enjoyment and benefit of the Navajo Nation” (Navajo Nation

Parks and Recreation, 2019: para 2). This mission highlights the importance of providing the

Navajo Tribal Parks for access and enjoyment by the members of the Navajo Nation first, and visitors second. However, there have been doubts expressed in the ability of the NNPRD to create a park model that is different from the NPS and benefits the community:

Parks of the Navajo Nation, and Monument Valley in particular, replicate NPS problems:

private vending, lack of money, inadequate cultural interpretation, external threats,

109

mistrust and resentment by local communities and in-holders, visitor numbers soaring

beyond capacity, commercialization, livestock management, law enforcement (Keller and

Turek, 1998:214).

Since the 1990s, cultural interpretation at MVNTP has increased. In 2010, the visitor center was renovated with community input in the material to be exhibited to teach visitors about the Navajo

Nation. The new center also asks visitors to respect the spiritual significance of Monument

Valley to the Navajo people: “A plaque placed before a picture window admonishes visitors,

‘You are looking into a sacred landscape’ and asks them to ‘respect sacred sites within the park’”

(Yurth, 2009: para 7).

The government structure of the Navajo Nation supports community engagement in the decision-making process. The Navajo Nation can vote regarding the allowance of recreation within their jurisdiction as presented in the case of the Kaibeto Chapter restricting access due to visitors not following regulations: “Recently, the Kaibeto Chapter community has prohibited hiking and camping in the entire area of Upper Kaibeto, Navajo Canyon…These closures are due to trespassing across residential areas” (Backcountry Hiking and Camping Permits, 2019). The structure of the three branches of government (Figure 15) also allows for concerns regarding management to be expressed by communities to the government, for example the LeChee

Chapter met with the Resources and Development Committee in 2017 to express concerns about the lack of clear planning by the Navajo Parks and Rec Department for monies generated by tourism to the Navajo Tribal Parks (“Plan unclear”, 2017).

Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve

At Thaidene Nene the centrality of realizing cultural benefits to the model is demonstrated in the vision statement, the descriptions of the National Park Reserve by the LKDFN and partners, the

110

different ways that the LKDFN exercised sovereignty over land use throughout the process.

Thaidene Nene also demonstrates commitment to maintaining cultural identity through facilitating community engagement in the decision-making process, and the development of opportunities for interpretation of Dene culture to visitors. Culture is central to the vision statement of the LKDFN for Thaidene Nene, “Protection of Thaidene Nene means preserving the environmental and cultural integrity of a homeland fundamental to a material well-being and cultural identity” (Backgrounder, 2013:2).

During public meetings in the planning process it was repeated that because of the unique way of life of the Northwest Territories, there will be different allowable uses than those in other

Parks Canada units. Programs in place like the Ni Hat’ni Dene Watchers of the Land provide opportunities for community members to be involved and connect to the land. This is exemplified in a LKDFN chief describing the importance of the Thaidene Nene National Park

Reserve designation for young people, “This was a mandate given to us by our elders and I'm very proud to be the chief that has ensured our future is protected for future generations” (Blake,

2019: para 7).

In 2008, the LKDFN developed a guardian program called the Ni Hat’ni Dene or “Dene

Watchers of the Land” to monitor activities in three culturally significant areas to the LKDFN which are located within the proposed Thaidene Nene area. The Ni Hat’ni Dene participate in activities such as: monitoring environmental indicators using traditional knowledge and science; maintaining the integrity of cultural sites and natural beauty within Thaidene Nene; communicating to visitors the significance of Thaidene Nene and administering visitor surveys; hosting and providing interpretive tours for visitors in the area; and transmitting cultural and scientific knowledge to younger generations (“Ni Hat’ni Dene”, 2019). The responsibilities of

111

the Ni Hat’ni Dene guardian program are described as: “interacting with visitors, monitoring the environmental well-being of the park, and passing on traditional knowledge to youth.” (Pope,

2019: para 4)

The case of Thaidene Nene is different from the other case studies used in this study because of the decision to partner with federal and provincial government agencies in protection.

In that way this is not solely a Tribal Park, but a co-management effort where the LKDFN have ensured that their cultural needs and the protection of their culturally significant territory is protected. They made a decision to choose co-management because it met their needs best, as illustrated in this quote from a LKDFN negotiator: “We engaged in this process from day one with the desire to protect a large chunk of our traditional territory from industrial development and Parks Canada’s legislation is the best legislation in the world for that” (Carmichael, 2015: para 3). The above quote demonstrates the interest of the LKDFN community to exercise sovereignty over land use, feeling that partnering with Parks Canada is the best way to protect this culturally significant landscape from resource extraction. The LKDFN negotiator goes on to describe that historically the Parks Canada legislation does not fit into the needs of northerners and First Nations. However, it may be a new time when the needs of communities and the goals of Park Canada can work together.

Dasiqox Tribal Park

Every line of the Dasiqox vision statement reflects the central place that realizing cultural benefits holds in the initiative. The importance of exercising sovereignty over their land and conserving places of cultural significance are major themes of the vision statement shown below:

With the Dasiqox Tribal Park, the Tŝilhqot’in people assert our responsibility and our

right to protect this place where the waters, land, forests, animals, and people are full of

112

life, thriving, healthy, and strong in our relationships with each other. We are part of the

land; the land is part of us. We take care of each other. Our spirits are joined with this

place, through time. The Dasiqox Tribal Park is the heart of a strong Tŝilhqot’in culture.

It is a place where we hunt, fish, learn, teach, and share while spending time out on the

land respectfully, a place where we feel happy and healthy. It is there for us; it is there for

future generations. (Community Vision and Management Goals, 2018:10).

Shown in the vision statement above, the connection between the Tsilhqot’in people and the land is partially through use of the land for subsistence. Hunting and fishing access for all residents of the area as well as collection of medicinal plants for members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation is central the development of the park.

In the media depictions of Dasiqox development, the need to protect the community from resource extraction is presented: “Both these First Nations have also seen massive extraction of resource wealth from their traditional territories with minimal local benefit” (Anderson, 2014: para 13). There are also descriptions in articles regarding Dasiqox of the significance of cultural benefits to the Tribal Park model: “part of the goal of tribal parks is cultural revitalization. At the

Dasiqox gathering, young and old came together to make rafts, build a fish trap, erect a cabin and sing traditional songs” (Gilchrist, 2016: para 18).

The lasting impacts of colonialism and the need for Tsilhqot’in power in land use management decisions is described several times by Dasiqox leadership: “the Dasiqox Tribal

Park is initiated to provide an opportunity and alternative to the status quo and the colonial apparatus of control that the Crown has held illegitimately, which the Tsilhqot’in are quickly outgrowing” (“Position Paper”, 2016:3). Connecting the Tsilhqot’in way of life and cultural connections to the land is described by a Tŝilhqot’in national government tribal chairman as:

113

“one of the most sacred places we have and some of our most significant archaeological finds come out of that area so having them clear trees, build highways and roads will destroy centuries of culture” (Lavoie, 2018: para 5).

Dasiqox leadership has embarked on an extensive community consultation process, which is present in the development of the Community Vision and Management Goals document. This highlights the importance in this case study of creating a vision for land conservation which meets the interests and needs of community members. Additionally, the choice of “Nexwagwez?an- there for us” as the name of the park reflects the intentions to preserve the land for use by the community, as opposed to traditional Provincial Protected Areas that are seen as exclusionary. There has also been an identified effort to whenever possible translate materials regarding Dasiqox into the Tsilhqot’in language to accommodate primarily

Tsilhqot’in speaking community members, as well as to show support for language revitalization

(Community Vision and Management Goals, 2018).

Leaders in the Dasiqox initiative have repeatedly highlighted how the Tribal Park model means that the Tsilhqot’in Nation and members of surrounding communities can develop the park around their interests rather than following the restrictions of the National Park model. That sentiment is illustrated in this newspaper article: “A tribal park recognizes the fact that you can still live on the land, and make a living from the land, and actually hunt and fish and trap and harvest those resources and it’s still there for the next generation” (Gilchrist, 2016: para 17).

Comparison of Cultural Benefits Across Case Studies

All of the case studies describe cultural benefits as central to the reason for establishing a Tribal

Park. In some cases, the connection between Tribal Park development and culture is exemplified in programs that encourage community members to learn about their culture and the land. In

114

other cases, the Tribal Park has increased community access to traditional foods and activities.

Understanding the importance of realizing cultural benefits to the designation of Tribal Parks requires reflecting on the post-colonial history of Tribes and First Nations in the United States and Canada, subjected to numerous displacements and land losses (Cronon, 1996; Spence, 1999;

Stevens, 2014). When removed from their lands, native people have lost access to the cultural and emotional connection to the landscape (Thornton, 2014). Tribal Parks have been described as a way for indigenous groups to exercise sovereignty over traditional territory (Murray & King,

2012). All of the case studies reviewed are using the development of a Tribal Park as a tool for land repatriation or community say in the way traditional territory is managed. With the exception of the UMUTP, which does not have a mission or vision statement, all of the case studies reviewed describe encouraging cultural benefits as a reason for Tribal Park establishment.

Hunting and gathering has been identified as contributing to the cultural and economic wellbeing of communities and contributing to social cohesion in rural communities (Povinelli,

1993). For all the case studies, the importance of protecting land for community member access to hunting, fishing and traditional food gathering was essential to park establishment. In the western National Park model, the concept of uninhabited wilderness has led to loss of subsistence access for tribal nations (Spence, 1999). Designating areas where cultural subsistence uses, and ecological protection can coexist is central to the Tribal Park model. In

Thaidene Nene, concerns about loss of access for hunting and fishing were the reasons that the

LKDFN community rejected the National Park proposal in 1969. Due to historical actions, many indigenous groups worldwide have expressed an association between protected areas and removal or loss of access (Robbins, 2011). A variety of ICCA models have been identified by

115

researchers as a way to incorporate traditional and cultural uses of the land into ecological conservation efforts (Axford, Hockings & Carver, 2008; Berkes, 2004).

Exercising tribal sovereignty over land use is also a major theme across the five case studies. Conservation area development has often been used as a tool to protect ecosystems from activities such as mining and industrial-scale forestry (Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997; Hayes, 2006,

Sandlos, 2014). Often the repercussions of these traditional conservation models are displacement of local people and loss of livelihoods (Cronon, 1996; Burnham, 2000; Keller &

Turek, 1998; Sandlos, 2014; Stevens, 2014). The emergence of Tribal Parks in the United States and Canada have been suggested by researchers as playing a role in systemic reclamations of indigenous sovereignty and territory using environmental stewardship as a tool (Carroll, 2014).

Frog Bay experienced a form of land repatriation to regain the tribal land base which was diminished as a result of the allotment era. In the Navajo Parks and Rec and UMUTP, both case studies are examples of protecting land base from concerns regarding external pressures and fear of federal control of land in the form of NPS units. In Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene, the catalyst for Tribal Park development was threats of natural resource extraction. Tribal Parks as a conservation tool combine interests in protection from industrial extractive industries without removal of the communities living in those areas.

Community engagement in the decision-making process does not appear to be as present in the Tribal Park model used in the three United States cases as it is in the Canadian models. In the cases of Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene, an extensive community visioning process was executed. Although the United States tribal council meeting process allows for tribal members to weigh-in to some extent, there is not the same level of community engagement in the visioning and regulation setting process as was present in Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene. Frog Bay, Ute

116

Mountain, and the Navajo Nation Parks and Rec all described some level of distrust for the process or hesitance towards the Tribal Park designation from community members. This may have been in part due to limited community engagement in the development process. Engaging community members in the planning process and developing relationships between community members and the organizing group has been identified as central to building trust in community- based tourism and conservation (Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Engen, Fauchald, & Hausner, 2019).

Interpreting the culture of the Tribe or First Nation on their own terms is a central feature of all Tribal Park case studies. Cultural tourism has been presented as a means for cultural exchange and increased pride in cultural practices (Williams & O’Neil, 2007). For example, Frog

Bay has interpretive signs providing the Ojibwe word for the Apostle Islands. UMUTP and

Navajo Parks and Rec have tribal tour guides for cultural interpretation. The MVNTP visitor center is another opportunity for visitors to receive interpretation of the area from the Navajo perspective. In Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene, the guardian programs provide cultural interpretation to visitors as well as passing knowledge to younger generations. One of the critiques of cultural tourism is that it is too often imposed on a rural or indigenous community against their interests (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016). By incorporating interpretation into the

Tribal Park model, the community holds more control over the content and delivery.

117

Role of Cultural Benefits Frog Bay Ute Navajo Thaidene Dasiqox Tribal Mountain Nation Parks Nene Tribal National Ute Tribal and National Park Park Park Recreation Park Initiative Department Reserve Culture a pillar in the vision X X X X statement/mission? Tribal Park increases access to X X traditional foods for community? Descriptions of cultural benefits on website and in media depictions of X X X the Tribal Park? Tribal Park tool for exercising X X X X X sovereignty regarding land use Community engagement in decision X X making regarding management? Opportunity for interpretation of X X X X X culture for visitors? Table 8: Role of Cultural Benefits

118

Role of Ecological Conservation

Frog Bay Tribal National Park

Conservation is a large part of the Frog Bay and FCCMA model. Protection of watersheds and sensitive ecosystems is prevalent in documents from the Red Cliff Band when discussing Frog

Bay. The mission of the Treaty Natural Resources Division describes the importance of maintaining areas of environmental importance (Treaty Natural Resources Division, 2019).

Descriptions of the purpose for protecting this land at a Tribal Council meeting highlights the importance of ecosystem conservation:

Proposal to transfer 80 acres of undeveloped Bayfield County Forestry lands within the

Red Cliff Reservation boundaries on Blueberry road near Frog Bay and the intent of the

GLRI to help preserve and protect this parcel as a conservation property for its ecosystem

benefits. (Red Cliff Tribal Council Meeting, 2017 July 3:2)

The Frog Bay brochure also discusses the FCCMA and the efforts of this project to acquire land parcels adjacent to Frog Bay Tribal National Park with the intention of protecting the entire Frog

Creek watershed from activities such as commercial timber harvest. Historically, logging was a major economic industry on the Red Cliff Reservation, “logging dominated the economy of both reservations in 1900, but the timber was soon depleted at Red Cliff” (Busch, 2008:65). The private ownership of the lands now within Frog Bay and FCCMA allowed for them to remain as intact pockets of boreal forest.

In the articles written about the development of Frog Bay, the significance of the unique ecosystem is depicted frequently:

This incredible property includes pristine sandy beaches bordered by primordial boreal

forest identified to be of Global Significance by the Wisconsin Department of Natural

119

Resources… Adjacent to the Frog Bay estuary and wild rice beds, the land is vital to the

drainage emptying into Lake Superior’s Frog Bay (“Exploring Frog Bay”, 2015: para 3).

The language used in the grant proposals to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to acquire funding for land acquisition describe sensitive habitat for wildlife. For example, in a

2017 grant proposal for 80-acres of Bayfield County land (Parcel D), the language describes the species habitat to be protected: “Acquisition and protection of an 80-acre parcel at the headwaters of Frog Creek to protect habitat for Gray Wolf, American Marten, and in-stream habitat for Coaster Brook Trout” (“Funding”, 2019).

The use of a “Preserved” land use zoning within the Red Cliff Code of Laws also demonstrates the importance of ecosystem conservation within the current political administration of the Red Cliff Band. Motorized vehicle use, mineral and gas exploration, commercial timber harvest, and grazing leases are all prohibited within Frog Bay and FCCMA

(Red Cliff Code of Laws-Chapter 25, 2017).

Within the Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) for the Red Cliff Band, the land use vision also reflects ecosystem protection as a main priority for community members presented in survey responses collected during the IRMP development process:

A major theme in survey responses indicated that the Tribal membership has strong

feelings for the protection and well-being of the natural environment and its constituents.

The Tribal membership recognizes that the Red Cliff Reservation is very unique and

special, not only in the region, but for the entire world. Many concerns were expressed

about the need for protection and preservation of the reservation’s natural resources for

the next seven generations (Red Cliff Integrated Resources Management Plan, 2006:17).

120

The Treaty Natural Resources Division covers many other ecosystem related departments within their division, such as fisheries, climate change, and fish and game. In tandem with the development of FBTNP and FCCMA, more land throughout the reservation being protected along the shoreline or in sensitive estuaries as “Preserved”.

Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park

There is very little mention of ecological conservation in the UMUTP’s foundational or descriptive documents. There is a recognition of conservation of the cultural artifacts and the ecotourism experience rather than the ecological integrity. For example, in the Ute Mountain Ute

Tribe “Groundwater Protection Plan” the purpose of the UMUTP is described as: “The Tribal

Park, a designated land area set aside for cultural and ecological tourism, including Mancos

Canyon and tributaries is an important cultural and natural resource for the Tribe and the nation”

(Mountaintop Associates, 2004:7). The intentions for conservation in UMUTP are depicted as:

“The Tribal Park has been set aside in recognition of the cultural value of the area. While other land uses and activities are allowed within the park area, the artifacts left by ancient peoples are important to the Tribe” (Mountaintop Associates, 2004:53). Wildlife and habitat are only mentioned on in the context of wildlife that may be seen on a tour and a warning regarding black bears within the park. There is no mention of wildlife monitoring or conservation (Ute Mountain

Ute Tribal Park, 2018).

In the last decade, oil and gas development have been main economic contributing industries on the Ute Mountain Ute lands (Torres-Reyes, 1970). There is no language within the constitution or in documents regarding the UMUTP which prohibits activities of this type within the park boundaries. Economic development is of great importance on the Ute Mountain Ute reservation. Therefore, conversations about land use often come to competing resource uses

121

between oil and gas, conservation, and grazing. However, in her research regarding the Ute

Mountain Ute IRMP process, Jacquelyn Jampolsky (2015) has proposed that in conversations within the Ute Mountain Ute tribe cultural uses of land are often weighted higher than resource development: “Debates about resource management equally weigh tribal and individual economic potential against the importance of culturally significant resources in terms of both place and practice. In fact, in meetings about resource development, the cultural importance of certain sites generally trumped economic potential” (p. 250). Another example of the tribe leaning towards conservation was provided in the 1980s, when the Ute Mountain Ute negotiated a mineral lease with a resource extraction company, the Wintershall Corporation. In this negotiation, the company agreed to “restrict activity in the tribal park” (Trimble, 1993:311).

There also do not appear to be clearly defined grazing limitations within the park, in a

2018 article recommended actions were proposed for preservation of the ruins within the park:

“preventing trails and livestock from crossing historic sites, repairing a bulldozed cut that is causing erosion in a ruin, and avoiding grading activity on the sides of access roads that border historic areas” (Mimiaga, 2018: para 22). The allowance of grazing and other economic activities was portrayed as: “The tribe runs cattle in the park and has drilled for oil and natural gas, a reminder of early mining at Mesa Verde. Mountain Ute members are allowed to hunt elk and mule deer” (Burnham, 2000:264).

Though allowable uses do not reflect strict ecological conservation intent, there have been several actions in recent years that reflect intentions for cultural resource conservation.

These include the development of a state THPO office and adopting a Cultural Resources

Management Plan (CRMP) in 2015 which defines the role of the THPO (“Grants Awarded”,

2019). In preparation of the Ute Mountain Ute IRMP archeological units within the UMUTP

122

were mapped and artifacts dated (Jampolsky, 2014). It may be that the separation between ecological resources, cultural resources and management of these resources may not be of significance to the Ute Mountain Ute as illustrated in this dissertation regarding the IRMP process: “In meetings and discussions about resource uses and management, the membership does not manifest any definitive separation between resources, or natural and cultural resources.

Rather, they express something more akin to a sliding scale of significance based on how the members view the place or resource in question” (Jampolsky, 2015:249).

Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department

In the case of the Navajo Parks and Rec Department, ecological conservation is not as prevalent as within other case studies. There are not clear regulations currently in place regarding limitations of grazing, commercial timber harvest, or mineral and gas extraction within the

Navajo Parks and Rec managed areas. The Navajo Parks and Rec mission describes preserving ecosystem services such as: “the spectacular landscapes, buttes, canyons, clean air, diversity of plants and wildlife, and areas of beauty and solitude” (Backcountry hiking and camping permits,

2019). However, further documentation regarding how these aspects of the mission are achieved is not present.

The Navajo Parks and Rec department is under the Division of Natural Resources which houses many departments responsible for ecosystem management on the Navajo reservation including Fish and Wildlife, Forestry and Land and Water Resources. Due to the extensive size of the Navajo Nation, it is likely that the goals of the Parks and Recreation Department focus around recreation and tourism, while other departments focus on ecosystem services. The Navajo

Nation Forestry Department is currently working on an IRMP to manage the forested resources

123

of the Navajo Nation. According to the purpose description on the IRMP webpage there is a lack of coordination between departments within the Navajo Nation that manage forested lands:

Presently, the Navajo Forestlands are managed independent of other natural and cultural

resource agencies and community and economic development priorities. Funding and

project implementation lack coordination across agencies and can lead to competing

priorities and inefficiency. This single resource management approach hinders the long-

term sustainability of our Navajo Forestland Areas (Navajo Forestlands Integrated

Resource Management Plan, 2017).

This identification of a deficit in communication between departments by the IRMP team could be the first step in remedying the issue. The Navajo Parks and Rec department is one of the agencies within the Navajo Nation which manages forested lands, communication between

Navajo Parks and Rec and other departments may improve if the IRMP team successfully acts upon this communication deficit.

Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve

The protection of culturally and ecologically significant areas from resource extraction industries is important to the development of Thaidene Nene. For example, “There are places within our traditional territory where mining can be done responsibly, and important economic benefits can be generated. But Thaidene Nene is not such a place. We will be careful to balance both our conservation and resource extraction interests” (Enzoe, 2013: para 8). Leadership from the

LKDFN described the need to protect Thaidene Nene from resource extraction at the World

Parks Congress in Sydney, Australia:

During the spring of 2000, a rush of mineral and energy development exploration

began in this area, threatening to fragment the lands and waters upon which the Lutsel

124

K’e Dene depend for food, medicine, and spiritual life. The LKDFN is currently

negotiating with Parks Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories to

establish Thaidene Nene as an innovative new kind of protected area by 2016 – before

a moratorium on staking claims ends (“Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation to present”, 2014).

Extensive studies were conducted to establish boundaries for Thaidene Nene that meet the ecosystem needs of the region. For example, migratory caribou distribution within the proposed

Thaidene Nene area was studied to “examine how well the withdrawal area captures fall and pre- calving caribou migratory routes and winter habitat use” (Gunn, Poole, & Wierzchowski,

2011:2). Caribou herds have been in steady decline and are a culturally significant species to the

LKDFN. The historic lifestyle of the LKDFN was defined by the movement of caribou herds through the landscape (Ellis, 2005). In addition to the caribou habitat study, the LKDFN commissioned a “State of Knowledge” Report in 2006 which provides a review of existing knowledge regarding: climate and physical environment, terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecology, human history and land use, and socio-economic and community wellness. The intention of the

“State of Knowledge” report was to develop an information resource that extensively covered the natural and human environments of Thaidene Nene (Senes Consultants Limited, 2006). These documents are significant because they demonstrate the dedication of the LKDFN to selecting park reserve boundaries that meet the conservation and habitat needs of the region.

In describing their reasoning for Thaidene Nene establishment, the LKDFN connects the interests of creating a thriving ecotourism industry with conserving the ecosystem services through ecological conservation:

The community believes Thaidene Nene will attract visitors, in part, because of its

ecological diversity. It’s in the transition zone between boreal forest and tundra, an area

125

that provides vital habitat for wildlife including moose, musk oxen, songbirds, bears, and

wolves. Large herds of barren-ground caribou migrate through the territory. The east arm

of Great Slave Lake is world-renowned for trophy pike, lake trout, and Arctic grayling

fishing (“First Nations Negotiator”, 2016)

From the Parks Canada perspective, the conservation benefits of Thaidene Nene include the ability to contribute to the Canadian Government’s protected area goals:

Goal of representing each of the 39 distinct, terrestrial natural regions within Parks

Canada’s National Parks System…The study area for the proposed Thaidene Nëné

national park reserve is an outstanding example of this natural region, with its dramatic

transition from the boreal forest of the Taiga Shield to the above tree-line in the southern

Arctic Tundra. (“Ecological Values”, 2017:1)

Conservation programs present in the Thaidene Nene case study include the monitoring provided by the Ni Hat’ni Dene, testing water quality and conducting fish sampling, as well as monitoring environmental change (“Ni Hat’ni Dene”, 2019). Similar to other cases, Thaidene Nene offers an example of a more circular relationship regarding culture and ecosystem conservation: “The intimate link between ecological and cultural integrity make Thaidene Nëné especially important to protect. Thaidene Nëné is a globally-significant carbon sink, a critical source of subsistence and cultural value, and is home to many beautiful places with special cultural significance to the

Łutsël K’é Dene.” (“Partners”, 2019: para 5)

Within the Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve boundaries mineral and gas leases are not allowed, neither is commercial timber harvest or grazing. Within the larger land withdrawal area, some areas were excluded from the national and territorial park areas to allow for

126

commercial uses in the future. These excluded areas were negotiated following the Devolution

Act and the involvement of the Government of the Northwest Territories in 2014.

Dasiqox Tribal Park

Protecting the land and the people from the impacts of resource extraction is a central component to the Dasiqox case study. Ecological conservation and its connection to culture are demonstrated in the mission statement. This quote from Dasiqox leadership provides an example of conservation intentions regarding Dasiqox: “Industrial impacts continue to affect us all. The pressures on the ground are intense. Mining, logging, and road building are all impacting our lands, as are the people who enter backcountry areas without respect for the land, animals, or our traditional ways” (How Nexwagwez?an Came To Be, 2018:1).

The importance of protecting the land as well as the quality and quantity of resources for future generations is present in all documents produced by Dasiqox Tribal Park and reviewed in this study. For example, the protection of water through protection and prohibition of certain activities is presented in the Community Vision and Management Goals document, as well as protection of ecosystems and restoration of damaged habitat: “Protect and/or manage land use in all ecosystems to maintain good habitat for fish and wildlife, and plant species” (Community

Vision and Management Goals, 2018:7).

Through the development of Dasiqox a guardian program monitoring of a variety of ecological systems are proposed. Some examples of this include monitoring water quality and land use monitored in a way that “prioritizes health of the systems as a whole” (Community

Vision and Management Goals, 2018:48).

The choice of Dasiqox’s location is attributed to wildlife habitat connectivity due to the existing Provincial Protected Areas adjacent to the park (Fact Sheet, 2018). One of the core steps

127

of planning identified is an “ecosystem-based approach to managing landscape, to maintain the biodiversity of key species and their related habitat” (“Position Paper”, 2016:4). The “Dasiqox

Position Paper” also describes that: “Tŝilhqot’in have been impacted greatly by climate change, and damage to the ecosystem by the pine beetle epidemic and forest harvesting” (“Position

Paper”, 2016:3). The impacts to the Tsilhqot’in Nation and their traditional territory by resource extraction is present throughout all of the documents discussing Dasiqox development. Activities such as mineral and gas leases, commercial timber harvest, and grazing are not likely to be permitted within Dasiqox. Although this does not mean the Dasiqox leadership is against any development, within the boundaries. They are seeking a sustainable development plan that benefits the communities now and protects sacred landscapes for future generations.

Comparison of Ecological Conservation Across Case Studies

All of the case studies have experienced the challenge of balancing economic development with ecological conservation. Indigenous protected areas have been identified as tools for facilitating biodiversity protections while ensuring community livelihoods are not impacted, by encouraging industries such as tourism to replace extractive industries (Carr et al., 2016). However, tourism literature identifies that balancing the interests of tourism with the protection of social and environmental resources is often difficult to achieve (Butler, 1993; Harris, Williams, & Griffin,

2012). The case studies with the strongest descriptions of ecological conservation also have significant histories of resource extraction (mining, logging, etc.) in culturally significant areas.

Conservation monitoring programs are facilitated through the Tribal Park in the cases of

Frog Bay, Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene. Conservation monitoring is important because it allows for practitioners to measure the impacts of their conservation actions (Danielsen, Burgess,

Balmford, 2005). Using indigenous guardian programs as the conduit for ecological monitoring

128

is important because it allows for increased capacity of community members by providing scientific monitoring experience and passing traditional ecological knowledge to younger generations (Social Ventures Australia, 2016).

One benefit to ecological conservation of indigenous protected areas identified in the literature is providing connectivity across large landscapes that is important for migration of wildlife, and for genetic exchange (Bassi et al., 2008). The location of Frog Bay along the shores of Lake Superior and in proximity to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore allows for shoreline and watershed protection connectivity. The UMUTP location adjacent to Mesa Verde National

Park allows for a connection of archeological resources, creating the largest archeological preserve in the United States (“Mancos Canyon Historic District”, 2019). Thaidene Nene

National Park Reserve’s location within the larger conglomerate of federal and territorial protected lands allows for continuity in sensitive caribou habitat (Ellis, 2005). At Dasiqox, the location of the proposed Tribal Park is strategically located to connect several Provincial

Protected Areas: Nunsti Provincial Park, Big Creek Provincial Park, South Chilcotin Mountains

Provincial Park, and Ts’ilʔos Provincial Park.

Tribal Parks play an important role in the larger ecological conservation narrative. In the

Canadian examples, the Tribal Parks protect large, expanses of unique ecosystems significant to biodiversity protection from resource extraction pressures (Sandlos, 2014). In the United States case studies, tribally managed lands represent a large portion of the countries undeveloped landscapes and plays a large role in biodiversity protection (Schmidt & Peterson, 2009). The lack of planning for or monitoring of ecosystem services in the cases of UMUTP and the Navajo

Parks and Rec department raises concerns regarding ecological conservation especially if tourism to these areas was to increase dramatically.

129

Role of Ecological Conservation Frog Ute Navajo Thaidene Dasiqox Bay Mountain Nation Nene Tribal Tribal Ute Parks and National Park National Tribal Recreation Park Initiative Park Park Department Reserve Ecological Conservation a pillar in the vision X X X X statement/mission? Descriptions of intentions for protection from resource extraction activities and land X X X development on website/documents created by the park? Conservation programs facilitated through tribal park (wildlife monitoring, climate X X X change data collection) Mineral/Gas leases prohibited within park X X X boundaries? Commercial timber harvest prohibited? X X X Grazing leases prohibited within park X X X boundaries? Provides landscape connectivity to National, X X X X Provincial, or Territorial Protected Areas? Table 9: Role of Ecological Conservation

130

Tribal Park Framework and Implications for the Blackfeet Nation

The study of Tribal Parks as an emerging tool for reclamation of land and reconciliation in

Canada has increased in recent years (Murray & King, 2012; Plotkin, 2018; Zurba, Beazley,

English, & Buchmann-Duck, 2019). However, the research on the United States’ Tribal Parks and their relationship to Indigenous Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) is largely understudied. Tribal Parks relate in structure to the ICCAs (Bassi et al., 2008; Berkes, 2009); however, Tribal Parks vary in central goals and structure. ICCAs have also been identified as providing wildlife corridor preservation (Freese et al., 2007; Sanderson et al., 2008) and incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge into management practices (Menzies & Butler,

2007). Similarly, Tribal Parks have been associated with ecological conservation and cultural empowerment (Carroll, 2014; Murray & King, 2012).

The economic, ecological, and cultural benefits and concerns of ICCAs, and Tribal Parks overlap. This research explored the benefits and challenges of this model across five established or developing Tribal Parks in the United States and Canada: Frog Bay Tribal National Park (Red

Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa), Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park (Mountain Ute Band), the Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation department, Dasiqox Tribal Park Initiative (Xeni

Gwet’in and Yunesit’in communities of the Tsilhqot’in Nation), and Thaidene Nene National

Park Reserve (Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation). While there are overlaps in benefits and challenges between Tribal Parks and ICCAs, the five case studies vary greatly in management structure, and which themes (tourism and economic development, cultural benefits, and ecological conservation) are the main focus of Tribal Park development. There were also differences between the Canadian and United States examples in planning, community engagement, and primary theme of focus. The examples in Canada (Thaidene Nene and Dasiqox) generally had

131

mission statements that incorporated all three components: tourism, cultural benefits, and ecosystem conservation. They also had more plans in place for tourism management, community engagement, and for intended protections from resource extraction.

Distribution of Indicators by Theme Across Case Studies Tourism and Cultural Ecological Total Economic Benefits Conservation Development Frog Bay Tribal National Park 1/6 5/6 7/7 13/19 Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park 4/6 2/6 1/7 7/19 Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation 4/6 3/6 1/7 8/19 Department Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve 4/6 5/6 7/7 16/19 Dasiqox Tribal Park Initiative 4/6 6/6 7/7 17/19 Table 10: Distribution of Criteria by Theme Across Case Studies

In the tourism and economic development theme, shifting economies and providing tourism employment has been described as a major outcome of indigenous conservation areas. The ability of Tribal Parks to facilitate community benefits through increased employment has been discussed as a central component of the Tribal Park tool (Murray & King, 2012). There are economic benefits associated with increased visitation due to the designation (Butler & Hinch,

2007) as well as community empowerment from gaining control of cultural interpretation (Carr et al., 2016). There are also negative results such as less than anticipated revenue due to the seasonality of the tourism industry (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016). The Navajo Parks and Rec department and the UMUTP showed the highest focus on tourism and economic development in their Tribal Park models. Increased visitation to the region has been a result of the Tribal Parks as well as employment for community members in guiding and other tourism related industries.

However, these cases also demonstrated the impacts of seasonality in visitation.

In the cultural benefits theme, cultural pride and regaining control of land-base have been identified as benefits of indigenous protected areas. These two benefits were present in all of the

132

case studies reviewed. The negative aspects have been identified as commodification of cultures and potential for erosion of cultural practices (Shepherd, 2002; Smith, 2016). These negative impacts were not demonstrated in any of the case studies reviewed. In all of the case studies, a strong component of Tribal Park development was to regain control of land on which to interpret their culture and use the land in a way that the community feels are appropriate. In the Canadian case studies, the intention to teach youth about cultural practices and traditional languages were intended components of the Tribal Park establishment.

In the theme of ecological conservation, the benefits proposed for indigenous protected areas are increased habitat connectivity, and preservation of sensitive ecosystems. In three of the case studies (Frog Bay, Thaidene Nene, and Dasiqox) these two positive benefits are central to

Tribal Park development. The negative impacts are trammeling of ecosystems due to poorly planned increased use (Smith, 2016; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016), and economic benefits that are not substantial enough to move the community away from resource extraction (Bratek et al.,

2006). Specifically, in the cases of the UMUTP and Navajo Parks and Rec these concerns may be substantiated. For the Ute Mountain Ute, revenues from the Tribal Park have been reported to be too small even to fund yearly Tribal Park operations (Burnham, 2000). In the case of the

Navajo Nation, the Parks and Rec department appears to be able to fund operations through the

Parks and Recreation Enterprise Fund, though limitations on oil and gas leases and mining and grazing are not documented. Additionally, the lack of planning regarding tourism management puts both of these case studies in a vulnerable position if visitation was to increase dramatically

(Smith, 2016; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016).

The discussion around Tribal Park development is increasing in prevalence in Canada with several articles and reports in recent years discussing the major components of successful

133

Tribal Parks in Canada (Artelle et al., 2019; Murray & King, 2012; Plotkin, 2018). In the United

States, there have not been as many recent discussions or studies looking at the components of

Tribal Parks. One peer-reviewed journal article in has explored the utilization of the Tribal Park model by Tribes in the United States (Carroll, 2014). In the 1990s and early 2000s, there were several books published that provide brief discussions on the Tribal Parks while primarily focusing on the relationships between Tribal Nations and the National Park Service (Burnham,

2000; Keller & Turek, 1998; Spence, 1999).

There has been research into other conservation tools used by Tribes and First Nations in the United States and Canada. For example, the use of co-management agreements and land trusts or conservation easements to achieve conservation and cultural land protection goals. Of the case studies, Thaidene Nene represents a co-management model for federal government-First

Nations relationships in Canada to manage land (Charlwood, 2019). There is demonstrated power-sharing between the LKDFN and Parks Canada, represented by the Trust Fund model that ensures the long-term investment of the LKDFN in management of Thaidene Nene (“Critical

Path”, 2018).

One critique made of the co-management agreement tool is that it is too often based in the western land management agency structure and requires the community to fit into agency plans and projects (Pinel & Pecos, 2012; Spaeder & Feit, 2005). Because the Tribal Park tool can be independent from federal land management agencies, development of a Tribal Park may be more suited to meet unique needs of a Tribe or First Nation rather than the co-management agreement tool. However, in situations where culturally significant areas are currently managed by a federal land management agency, the co-management tool could be an appropriate option.

Some of the case studies have utilized both Tribal Parks and co-management agreements to

134

exercise sovereignty over tribal lands. For example, in 2018 the Navajo Nation implemented co- management agreements with the National Park Service at Canyon de Chelly.

In order to determine the utility of a tool like the Tribal Park model for the Blackfeet

Nation it is necessary to ask the question: What are the challenges that members of the Blackfeet

Nation are working to address? And how can a Tribal Park help address these challenges?

Across the five case studies of Tribal Parks, it will be important to recognize the specific goals of each Tribal Park and how these align with the challenges faced by the Blackfeet Nation to assess if a Tribal Park would achieve similar outcomes. Table 11 explores the challenges addressed by the Tribal Park tool in the reviewed case studies and how these challenges relate to the Blackfeet

Nation in their exploration of a Tribal Park.

The Tribal Park model has provided opportunities for the Tribes and First Nations from the case studies to address concerns such as further land loss to federal land management agencies. Tribes and First Nations have also used Tribal Parks to exercise sovereignty over traditional territory and incorporate traditional cultural uses of the land into conservation practices. Other challenges addressed by the Tribal Park tool include repatriating lost land and increasing access for community members. Tribal Parks have also served as a tool to develop new economic opportunities through tourism development. The opportunities of this tool for the

Blackfeet overlap with uses by the case studies. A Tribal Park or conservation area could assist in exercising Blackfeet sovereignty over the management of land and allowable uses, regaining land lost due to allotment, and exemplifying what conservation looks like for the Blackfeet

Nation. A conservation area could also increase access for Blackfeet community members to experiences of solitude as well as hunting and gathering and provide increased economic opportunities for community members through tourism development.

135

Challenge How Tribal Parks Address Challenge Case Studies Blackfeet Nation The conventional Development of Tribal Parks to address History: conservation area concerns of further land loss to Federal -The treaty of 1896 led to loss Glacier model based in land management agencies: National Park and then revoking of western dichotomies -Systemic reclamations of indigenous treaty rights to that area (Ashby, 1985; between nature and sovereignty and territory using Craig et al., 2012; Foley, 1974). humans (Spence, environmental stewardship as a tool -Also led to the loss of management of 1999; Cronon, 1996). (Carroll, 2014). the Badger-Two Medicine (Nie, 2008). Leading to losses of -UMUTP and Navajo Parks and Rec: access and established in response to losses of land to Potential for Conservation Area: displacement from NPS (for Mesa Verde and Canyon de -Exercise Blackfeet sovereignty through traditional lands. Chelly) and concerns regarding more management of tribal lands on the losses. reservation for conservation and -Thaidene Nene: After originally rejecting community access. proposals for a National Park due to concerns regarding access, the LKDFN chose to partner with Parks Canada and the in development and management. Extractive industries Exercising sovereignty over land use and History: in traditional territory conserving places of cultural significance: -Oil and Gas leases in the Badger-Two and spiritually Medicine (Nie, 2008), significant landscapes. -Dasiqox: response to open pit mine -Stockgrowers- grazing conflicts along Lack of Tribal/First proposal in the heart of traditional the GNP boundary (Burnham, 2000; Nation consultation in territory, as well as industrial logging and Keller & Turek, 1998). land management smaller mining projects in traditional -Allotment reducing tribal land base decisions. territory. (Foley, 1974). -Thaidene Nene: response to Diamond -Recreational uses: motorized vehicles mining boom in the region. in the Badger-Two Medicine (Nie, -Frog Bay: Land repatriation, allotment 2008) and climbing of Chief Mountain led to nonnative landowners and the in GNP (Craig et al., 2012). county owning land within reservation Potential for Conservation Area: boundaries. -Repatriation of allotted lands, tribal decision making over permitted recreational and resource development activities. Conventional Incorporating traditional and cultural History: conservation models uses of the land into conservation: -Attempts to collaborate on land do not sufficiently -Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene: indigenous management with regional federal land incorporate different guardian programs camps and gatherings management agencies have been ways of knowing and on the land, translation of Dasiqox tenuous (Nie, 2008). interests of indigenous materials into Tsilhqot’in language. -Management of the Badger-Two groups and local Medicine by USFS not consistent with communities. Tribal Parks provide more circular cultural interests of the Blackfeet. The relationship between culture and ceded strip is considered to be sacred conservation: ground (Bodily, 2014; Nie, 2008)

136

-UMUTP: provides circular relationship Potential for Conservation Area: between conservation of cultural and -Development of a conservation area environmental resources (Jampolsky, which incorporates cultural uses and the 2014). relationship with the land, and exemplify what conservation looks like for the Blackfeet Nation. Diminished land base Land repatriation and cultural History: and loss of access for revitalization- increased access for -Loss of access to places of cultural tribal members to community members: significance such as Chief Mountain and access traditional -Tribal Parks provide “spaces where the Badger Two-Medicine Transfer of foods and medicinal people can use the land, wildlife, water spiritual power from these places plants. and plants in respectful, restorative and (Bodily, 2014). sustainable ways.” (Plotkin, 2018:25) Potential for conservation area: -Dasiqox: Fishing camps, building cabins -Increased access to community for increased access. members for experiences of solitude and -Thaidene Nene: hunting fishing, cabin hunting and medicinal plant gathering. construction permitted. -Frog Bay: seeding of wild rice beds and increased access to culturally significant items such as cedar. Shifting local Economic opportunities through tourism History: economies, need for development and capacity building for -Numerous GNP visitors pass through economic community members: the Blackfeet Reservation when coming development -Tribal Park case studies in remote or going, many are not stopping and opportunities. locations with limited economic spending time on the reservation which opportunities for community members. is seen as a loss of potential revenue. -Dasiqox, Thaidene Nene: the intention -GNP is facing unprecedented over- for eco-tourism and sustainable crowding leading to actions such as livelihoods for the community. closures of areas of the park due to full -Navajo Nation and UMUTP: harnessing parking lots. tourism to the geological and cultural Potential for Conservation Area: resources of the region. Tourism industry -This is potential for tribal members to employment opportunities for tribal better be harnessing some of this members. visitation for economic benefit. -Dispersion of visitors to a Blackfeet Conservation Area could help GNP with crowding. Table 11: Relationships between challenges and how Tribal Parks can address these challenges in the case studies and in the Blackfeet Nation.

137

The differences in structure being pursued between the Canadian and United States case studies could be of consequence to the Blackfeet Nation. The location of the Blackfoot Confederacy, split between what is now the United States and Canada, puts the Blackfeet Nation at a unique location. If a Tribal Park were to be pursued through the larger Blackfoot Confederacy, there may be a need to integrate Canadian and United States perceptions of Tribal Parks. The next chapter explores interests and concerns from the Blackfeet Nation regarding the development of a Tribal Park or conservation area. The utility of a Tribal Park to address problems identified in the Blackfeet Nation depends upon Blackfeet interest in utilizing this tool in ways that Tribal

Park case studies have. The Blackfeet Nation’s interests and concerns are explored using qualitative interviews with Blackfeet community members. The recommended next steps in the planning process will be discussed by comparing themes from the case studies reviewed with the themes that arose in Blackfeet Nation interviews.

138

Chapter Five: Potential of the Tribal Park Concept for the Blackfeet

This chapter discusses Phase Two of the study and explores interests and concerns regarding the creation of a conservation area by the Blackfeet Nation. Building on Phase One of the research which identified key components of the Tribal Park model, this Phase explores how the components of the Tribal Park models explored in Phase One might fit into the interests, goals, and concerns of the Blackfeet Nation. This chapter uses the results of interviews compared with results from Phase One to explore next steps in planning to determine the utility of the Tribal

Park tool in Blackfeet Country. The main research question (RQ2) addressed in this chapter is:

How can the Tribal Park model be an opportunity for the Blackfeet Nation? The sub questions explored include:

a. What is the role of tourism and economic development? b. What is the role of cultural benefits? c. What is the role of ecological conservation? It is important to note that during the researcher’s time in Blackfeet Country, it became apparent that the term “Tribal Park” carried different weight with people in the community. While this research was being conducted an article was published in the High-Country News magazine:

“The Blackfeet is opening its own National Park” which used the terms “Tribal Park” and

“National Park” somewhat interchangeably when describing the project, this article was met with disagreement and questions by a contingent of the Blackfeet community. During research and in the following results, the term “Blackfeet Conservation Area” is used rather than Tribal Park to avoid leading respondents towards one proposal or perspective.

Efforts to create conservation areas on Blackfeet lands is just one of several projects and plans regarding land use that are occurring in Blackfeet Country. This research is independent from the following projects; however, it is related to other initiatives occurring. In order to

139

understand the role of this potential project in relation to the larger efforts, understanding other

initiatives is important. Table 12 describes some of the current and recent projects that relate to

the Blackfeet Conservation Area idea and describes how these initiatives relate to the potential

Blackfeet Conservation Area.

Project/Plan Purpose Relation to Blackfeet Conservation Area Agriculture The tribe developed an Agriculture Resources Within the strategic pillars of the ARMP Resources Management Plan for the Blackfeet Nation there are several objectives that relate to the Management along a “triple-bottom line” system including Blackfeet Conservation Area including but Plan relationships among sustainable agricultural not limited to: (ARMP) production, the narrowing of health disparities -Explore Tribal mechanism for through the production of healthy, locally establishment of Tribal conservation areas; sourced foods, and investing in youth. -Identify Tribal conservation areas; Development of the ARMP is part of the -Develop recreation sites at lakes within the Integrated Resources Management Plan (IRMP) Blackfeet Nation. process. An IRMP is a strategic planning for -Create prairie land designations; tribal land-based resources. -Understand and maintain the integrity of Regulatory mandates encouraging the core habitat areas in the Blackfeet Nation development of an IRMP come from The and better protect them. National Indian Forest Resources Management -Create a Blackfeet agricultural-tourism Act (P.L.101-630 Title III) and the American model. Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act The Blackfeet Conservation Area proposal is (P.L.103-177) which require that forest and one component of the ARMP process- agricultural management plans conform to tribal however this research is not officially part of IRMPs (Hall, 2001). the ARMP process. Amskapi Developed to meet one of the strategic pillars of Blackfeet Conservation Area is identified in Piikani Food the ARMP: to “develop a strategic plan to guide the Strategic Plan as a project which will Sovereignty and promote the sustainability of traditional increase community member access to Strategic foods, agriculture, food and land access, and the traditional foods. One of the internal Plan health and wellbeing of the Amskapi Piikani” weaknesses currently which inhibits access (Food Sovereignty Strategic Plan, 2019: 4). The to traditional foods is: “Jurisdictional Plan “identifies ways to create sustainable complexities around trust land management economic development and provide healthy, resulting in limited access to land” (Food traditional food options for the community.” Sovereignty Strategic Plan, 2019: 10). (Food Sovereignty Strategic Plan, 2019: 4). Badger-Two A fight to cancel the remaining Oil and Gas Protection of the Badger-Two Medicine area Medicine leases in the Badger-Two Medicine area which is central to the efforts of the Blackfeet Protection is home to the Blackfeet People’s creation Nation to act as stewards and protect sacred Efforts story: “the Blackfeet Nation will always be lands and culture. Permanent protection of under pressure to maintain the protection of the Badger-Two Medicine is part of an effort these types of cultural, traditional and sacred to exercise sovereignty over the uses of lands” (“Too Sacred to Develop”, 2019). traditional territory.

140

Iinnii A program started by leaders of the Blackfoot Part of the vision of the Iinnii initiative is to Initiative Confederacy (Blackfeet Nation, Kainai Nation, have areas on the Blackfeet Reservation Piikani Nation, and Siksika Nation) to return where the buffalo can run freely, and visitors free roaming buffalo to the landscape in can enjoy them. A Tribal Park or traditional Blackfeet Territory. This includes conservation area has been thought of as a partnering with Waterton-Glacier International way to accomplish this goal. Peace Park to bring Buffalo back to the landscape in these parks. Part of the vision is for an Iinnii Buffalo Goals are “to conserve traditional lands, protect Spirit Center to interpret Blackfeet culture Blackfeet culture, and create a home for the and the relationship between buffalo and the buffalo to return to.” In 2016, 88 genetically Blackfeet People to visitors. This pure bison were returned to Blackfeet lands interpretive center could overlap with from Elk Island, Alberta. Blackfeet Conservation Area efforts. Blackfeet A plan to prepare the Blackfeet community to In the list of efforts currently underway in Climate address the impacts of climate change: Blackfeet Country to support climate change Change “Underlying the plan is the Blackfeet adaptation, “Creating a Blackfeet National Adaptation understanding that people and nature are one Park” is listed: “Efforts are underway to Plan and that people can only be healthy if we ensure create a national park conserve on land the health of the environment, we are part of” within ten miles of GNP and the Helena- (Blackfeet Climate Change Adaptation Plan, Lewis and Clark National Forest” (Blackfeet 2018). This plan began in conjunction with the Climate Change Adaptation Plan, 2018). ARMP, with the intention that both plans will Another component relating to the Blackfeet inform the development of a Blackfeet Conservation Area: Create designation for Integrated Resource Management Plan. permanent land conservation. O’ Komi A survey conducted in conjunction with the Under questions regarding land use and Survey ARMP process to gather information from the conservation, respondents were asked it the Blackfeet members asking questions regarding supported a tribally created conservation land use, conservation, policy and leadership, area. 77% responded in favor of a tribal and food. conservation area. Blackfeet In 2017, members of the Blackfeet Nation voted The water compact and settlement act Water for the Blackfeet Water Compact and included funds for projects including: Compact Settlement Act: “The compact confirmed and “irrigation and community water systems, quantified our water rights and established the funds for the Blackfeet Irrigation Project, Tribe’s jurisdiction over our water” (“Water energy projects, land and water acquisition, Compact”, 2017). recreational lake development, fishery enhancement and protection, environmental improvements and more” (“Water Compact”, 2017). There is potential to work together between a Blackfeet Conservation Area program and the Water Compact team to increase access to community members and conserve environmentally sensitive areas. Table 12: Overview of Other Current Blackfeet Land-Use Efforts

141

In addition to these projects and initiatives, the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research conducted a survey in 2018 to better understand the interest of Montana visitors in cultural tourism in the Native American communities located in Montana, with a special focus on the

Blackfeet Nation and a potential Blackfeet Conservation Area. This survey provided more information to understand the interest in visiting and willingness to pay for activities in a potential conservation area (Sage, Wheeler, & Nickerson, 2019). The full results of this survey are provided in Appendix B. This survey is significant to this study because it begins to address the demand side of the development of a conservation area in Blackfeet Country. Beyond understanding interest of the community in developing conservation lands, it is important to understand visitor interest in the region and culture as well as willingness to pay for services and experiences. Some of the key findings of the potential interests in a Blackfeet Conservation Area survey were:

• Respondents described a high level of interest in exploring sites and experiences related

to Native American culture and history; however, respondents also indicated not stopping

when passing through a reservation due to a lack of knowledge about the current

activities and opportunities available.

• This survey showed that there was a high level of interest in a conservation area,

respondents indicated they would be ‘extremely likely’ to participate in a day trip to a

potential Blackfeet Conservation Area.

• Willingness to pay: The average daily fee respondents indicated they would be willing to

pay was $11 (per person). Survey respondents also identified willingness to pay $5 for a

backcountry or hiking permit.

142

The report for this survey cautioned that though there was high interest in visiting a Blackfeet

Conservation Area expressed, the decision to stop was dependent on awareness of these opportunities ahead of the trip (Sage et al., 2019). Other researchers have identified that effective tourism development requires adequate information available electronically (Bansal & Eiselt,

2004; Reid, Smith, & McCloskey, 2008; Sage et al., 2019). In addition to information for trip planning, infrastructure improvements such as increased garbage collection and development of restroom facilities will likely be needed. Infrastructure has been identified as necessary for rural communities interested in realizing benefits of tourism development (Wilson, Fesenmaier,

Fesenmaier, & Van Es, 2001).

Methodology

Phase Two involved conducting semi-structured in-depth interviews with members of the

Blackfeet Nation. The interview guide was informed by the themes that resulted during Phase

One when studying the existing Tribal Park case studies. Respondents were involved in industries which would either impact the potential Blackfeet Conservation Area or be impacted by these proposed conservation lands. There were 12 interviews conducted. Respondents included, three ranchers, four tourism operators and outfitters, four government program managers, and one external partner (from GNP). In addition to semi-structured interviews the researcher attended meetings, events, and planning workshops in the community from April

2018-September 2019. For more detailed methods, see Chapter 3.

Results

Tourism and Economic Development

The location of the Blackfeet Nation on the eastern boundary of GNP puts the tribe in a unique position due to the volume of visitors to GNP who pass through the reservation every year. The

143

benefits to the community of using tourism as an economic development tool was recognized by interview respondents. Respondents identified potential activities and ways that the community could capitalize on tourism development through a potential Blackfeet Conservation Area.

Though many benefits of tourism development were discussed, some concerns and hesitations to tourism were also described.

Tourism Benefits

The large number of visitors that currently pass through the reservation without stopping, and the lack of current economic benefits from these travelers was provided as a potential incentive for development of the conservation area:

Since tourists are already flying through here anyways and using our road systems and not buying anything on their way through, I don’t think it would draw more traffic but I think it would help alleviate Glacier’s [traffic] and help people to realize what a cool place this is and spend some of their money here not just filling up in Cut Bank and pray you make it across the mountains.

Specifically, capturing revenue from GNP visitors was recognized as an important potential tourism benefit:

Because this conservation land project is entirely about getting revenue from the people that go to Glacier National Park, and that number of people is growing. It just keeps growing and growing, and then you look at the town of Browning and it’s like, people are just passing through and there is no money that is dropping down to the people.

Developing a conservation area that provides additional opportunities to GNP visitors when the national park is overcrowded was also described by a respondent:

Because that’s a cool area anyways and then you’re moving in towards the park. And when the park is full people need somewhere to go hangout in. Especially people who aren’t into backpacking or something like that. If they just want to go for a picnic and the park is full.

While not all respondents mentioned the crowding of GNP and the opportunity to capture revenue from these visitors, general economic benefits of this potential conservation area were

144

described by many respondents. As one interviewee said, “Well I am all about economic development, so I think it is a win-win. I think the effort is worthy I think it is something that has been discussed many times many ways and I like the energy that it has.” Other interviewees recognized the revenue that visitation to a conservation area could provide: “A conservation area would be good for the community because of tourism money.” Economic benefits were also seen as a reason for community support of the conservation area: “There will be community support for a tribal park because of tourism money.” At the individual level, economic benefits served as a driver for supporting the project:

I was also in charge of the campgrounds so I had quite a bit of responsibility for a young person and made a lot of mistakes and, but it was you know a lot of fun and gave me some insights into the economic benefits to be derived from tourism. So that’s why I am interested in the park idea.

In the context of a potential guiding opportunity with the Iinnii initiative that did not work out, one respondent described the benefits eco-tourism could provide: “…Which is unfortunate because partnerships like that with Iinnii could be a form of eco-tourism that will benefit the local people, although eco-tourism in general is a great opportunity for the tribal members.”

The potential for cultural interpretation and sharing Blackfeet culture was highlighted as a benefit of tourism. As one person described, the general public is not well educated about the modern Blackfeet, “They might not understand the difference between the Blackfeet

Conservation Area and Glacier National Park because they aren’t from the area and don’t understand the reservation land types or the modern Blackfeet. People think the Blackfeet still live in Tipis.” Another interviewee described the opportunity for interpretation of Blackfeet culture that could be provided in a conservation area visitor center:

I think one area that doesn’t jump out at you immediately as being something that a tribal park would enable us to do, I mean we could be doing it right now, but I think the best analogy I can think of is the Polynesian cultural center in Hawaii, I mean that to me is

145

more attractive tourism development then something like Disneyland you know. But most parents think oh you know take your kids to Disneyland that’s the sliced bread, but something like the Polynesian cultural center would be a way for our tribe, the Blackfeet people to display our culture more importantly our love for mother nature and the resources that exist there, and how it ties in with our culture and history and everything. And a tribal park would enable us to do that, you know right now we are kind of content to be a little side show that Glacier Park offers and you know some of my friends and relatives participate in that but it’s a drop in a bucket if you compare that to what the Polynesian cultural center is, to me it’s just a world of difference.

Several respondents thought that the land and the wildlife that the Blackfeet Nation has to offer would be a point of interest to visitors. As one interviewee described the tourism benefits of the

Iinnii initiative, “The return of the buffalo to the landscape is an important aspect of the conservation area, both because it would be a point of interest to tourists, but also the importance to the community of having buffalo back.” Another respondent described an interest in making sure the Iinnii are put in a place where visitors could appreciate them on the landscape:

Yeah, you could drive on through in Chief Mountain just as a park, you could drive on through ours from Glacier National Park and then hit the Canadian side. Do a little tour. So, to me that is the ideal. Where everybody can appreciate, see the animals and appreciate. If they are put in the Badger-Two Medicine area, it is way out. And this has a highway going right through…

Others spoke about abundant wildlife on the Blackfeet reservation that can be linked to tourism opportunities. For example, one interviewee shared: “So, like most of my animal sightings except for bears have been on my way to go to the park through the reservation section.”

Similarly, there are benefits of sharing wildlife viewing opportunities with visitors:

This summer, we were going up to upper Two Medicine[lake] and we saw a cow moose on the reservation you know, it just seems like there is a lot of potential on the reservation we are not tapping into, and the tourists are missing out and the tribe is missing out on revenue. It is a lost opportunity you know.

Vision for Tourism Activities

Respondents mentioned specific tourism activities that could happen in conjunction with the potential Blackfeet Conservation Area. One interviewee expressed the interest from the larger

146

tourism industry in promoting and supporting Blackfeet tourism efforts such as Blackfeet conservation lands: “I think the tourism community would be interested in promoting tribal tourism and what that looks like. It would be you know a great model for tribal tourism.”

Guiding and additional camping and hiking opportunities were mentioned by several respondents as “some roads that could be designated for paths and interpretive guided tours and those types of things.” Also described were tour opportunities in conjunction with bison:

You know between here and East Glacier, a lot of people pull over and take pictures of those bison, but it would be even nicer if we had a little safari or even as simple as a little hayride through the bison. Or anything like that I am sure we wouldn’t have to invest a lot of money because we are in control of the land base and we have a lot of high unemployment and people would really eat that up if they knew there was a place where they could pull over and really get up close and personal with the buffalo you know.

One interviewee referred to the success of an interpretive overlook near St. Mary and the need for more sites like this one throughout the reservation: “There should be more pullouts and sites like the one overlooking St. Mary.”

Some respondents discussed the potential to promote and allow activities that are not permitted within the park boundaries, or activities that are beyond the mission of the NPS:

I also think of like you can’t go mountain biking in Glacier Park. As far as…you know if people want to go into Glacier, but they are afraid of being attacked or mauled by a grizzly bear, so the tribe is probably in a better position to provide some bear-free camping, where we fence an area out, electrify it or whatever we have to do and people could camp in a tent and feel relatively comfortable and that they are safe and yet they are within a stone’s throw of Glacier Park, so there are a lot of little opportunities like that I think the tribe could tap into, but I think right now they are, not being tapped into.

Others talk about potential for interpretive centers: “An interpretive center that would tell the

Blackfeet history and tell the story of the buffalo along with it. So that is what I want to do up there because a lot of people would be coming there also.” One respondent suggested creating something similar to models used at other locations such as Grand Canyon: “use of an interpretive center that is totally designed to benefit entrepreneurs with crafts and art and

147

interpretive guiding and uses of Grand Canyon National Park. For the use of the people who were displaced from there.”

Establishing multi-use areas where sustainable grazing practices would still be allowed could promote opportunities for visitors to tour working landscapes: “Well you could use it to showcase responsible grazing. Yeah, because I mean people enjoy seeing cattle and things they don’t have at home, and I mean you still have potential in that area to see wildlife.” There also could be integration of habitat preservation with hunting opportunities:

But yeah, I think that’s part of the point of having the prairie land designation as well as, you can see it other places, crop lands take up all the native grasslands and especially if we make irrigation improvements people might want to get easements. You’re losing a lot of native grassland habitat, so it is important these easements are being used for rangeland. Which they’re fun to go visit and see, there are also the opportunities for hunting there with upland game birds and things like that.

Tourism Concerns

There were some hesitations and concerns regarding tourism development from respondents.

One concern expressed was the potential for commercialization, like the vortex and other tourism enterprises on the west side of GNP: “Obviously we don’t want people setting up zip lines and, what’s that one… the cyclone or whatever.” Others had concerns regarding overcrowding, like what has happened in GNP: “How to keep it from being overrun by visitors, like Two Medicine, to the point that community members don’t even like to visit because it is too busy.” As another person reflected, “The overcrowding of the park trail systems for instance. It is not even fun anymore to go for a hike in the park. Might as well go for a hike in the city, central park in New

York. So how do you balance that use and overuse.”

148

Infrastructure Needs

Improving infrastructure in the town of Browning was identified by several respondents as important before tourism benefits could be realized: “It would be good to try it out and let tourism expand. To make this expansion possible things need to happen. Cleaning up the

Browning townsite and painting the buildings to help make them look presentable.” Other respondents considered the limitations currently with solid waste collection: “there is litter and garbage around the reservation on fences and in town and this not only gives the community a bad name with visitors but is bad for the self-esteem of community members.” Additionally, there are safety concerns of overrun solid waste collection programs:

Solid waste… that is a perfect, well I wouldn’t say perfect but good example of one of those functions that right now is not working very well, so a lot of the bear problems we have had in the St. Mary/Babb area is a direct result of solid waste pick-up not occurring on a regular basis so then the bears get a taste of garbage and then we have some habituated bears we have to get rid of, and so a park is going to have the same sort of challenges.

Preparing to provide the services desired by visitors was discussed by one interviewee:

As far as providing for visitors, providing the kind of things they need, the kind of services the kind of facilities…how do you provide just the basics. How to put toilet facilities for the visitors. They have this great tribal tourism trail for visitors to go along but they know they don’t have any sort of toilet facilities for visitors to use and there is building them, but also how do you take care of them?

Acquiring adequate funding to achieve the necessary improvements to make the conservation area successful were also identified as a challenge: “The tribe is poor and funding to make the project happen is a challenge with the current administration.” There is also a need to fund fencing the boundaries if bison were on the landscape: “Cost of fencing if there is going to be buffalo on the land, especially in variable mountain terrain.” Costs may also be associated with the increased spread of invasive weeds that could come with increased visitor use:

149

What about weeds and how those would be managed in a tribal conservation area? With increased access, there would be the spread of weeds which would need to be managed. That is expensive and so would need to be factored into the plan for the conservation area, where would the money come from for that?

The need for increased game wardens and law enforcement staff if there are increased visitors was identified by several respondents: “we will have to watch really closely for nonnative folk out there gathering and thing like that as well.” Similarly, another respondent shared:

We definitely will need to up our game wardens and be able to pay for the everyday management of the different areas. Will need law enforcement officials of some kind although then you will run into, the tribe only has civil jurisdiction over nonnatives, so if someone is out there drunk and tearing up a field and they are white, you could only do a fine.

The need for general enforcement was identified by another interviewee as one of the most important needs of a potential Blackfeet Conservation Area:

Like the Nature Conservancy and Vital Grounds and some of these other non-profits out there are willing to turn land over to the tribe as long as they manage it for you know wildlife and so forth, but then it boils down to who is going to be the enforcement arm to make sure that it is managed better? And that there isn’t trespass grazing or poaching or that kind of stuff going on. I think that is where the rubber meets the road, I don’t know what the solution is, but someone is really going to have to think that through to come up with a good plan.

Cultural Benefits

The interaction between culture and a potential Blackfeet Conservation Area was discussed by many respondents including the significance of the land and the wildlife to the Blackfeet culture.

The opportunities for increased community access and land repatriation were identified as benefits in addition to the ways a potential conservation area could meet the needs of the community. Lastly, potential concerns emerged for ways the conservation area might be at odds with community needs, by imposing limitations or restrictions on access to the land for community members.

150

Relationships to the Land

Relationships between Blackfeet culture and the land were described in several ways. One respondent described historical uses of the land as, “Grazing has always been part of the ecosystem with elk and bison grazing the landscape historically. Humans are also historically a part of this natural environment. My ancestors burned the ground and moved animals around, helping to control the patterns of buffalo movement.” The cultural significance of buffalo to the

Blackfeet People was portrayed by one respondent:

I think it is really important to have the buffalo back, it was really important from the beginning to have these buffalo back, they are really important to us. They are a really important part of our culture and out existence. They were the animals that took care of us and our existence.

Others referred to the connection between traditional practices and the natural world:

It’s about the people, and the land. And that relationship is so evident when you talk to Blackfeet elders, you know some of the real simple traditions. When you talk about a medicine bag, in a medicine bag is a rock, or sweetgrass, or something of our land that you carry with you because we are all a part of it because we came from it and will return to it. And the importance of that is not measurable.

One respondent described the role of a potential conservation area in showcasing the relationship to the land, “a way for our tribe, the Blackfeet People to display our culture more importantly our love for mother nature and the resources that exist there, and how it ties in with our culture and history and everything. And a Tribal Park would enable us to do that.”

Potential Cultural Advantages

The potential for increased access to community members was also identified as a benefit of

Blackfeet Conservation Area development. For example, “The benefit of the conservation land to the community would be access for people who cannot get up to places like the Badger-Two

Medicine to experience places of solitude.” Access to areas not managed by a federal land management agency was another highlighted benefit: “The benefits to the tribal members of

151

having access to conserved land not managed by the NPS.” Additionally, increased access to traditional foods and hunting were identified as goals by one respondent as, “more access for the local people to traditional foods including buffalo as well as medicinal plants and creating the protections around these plants and expanding the area of what is available.”

Land repatriation opportunities offered additional benefits: “Allotment shrank the available land of the tribe. This took land away from tribal members. So, when we are talking about land conservation there is intergenerational trauma from loss of land and livelihoods. The tribe is still in survival mode, not in sustainable mode.” Another interviewee echoed this sentiment, “To me the vision for that is returning the piece of ground back to the tribe, taking care of the ground that’s there.”

Cultural Concerns

Concerns regarding limitations and restrictions on cultural practices were brought up many times by respondents. Many of the concerns were associated with terminology. One respondent indicated, “Because the first thing that I think of when I hear the terms conservancy or national park is non-hunting, non-fishing. So, I think that would be a big concern, and then community wise I think it would be a big concern that this would impact their hunting privileges.” Another interviewee described a question they were asked by a community member at a presentation they gave, “How is the park really going to affect local hunters?” The need to accommodate varying land uses was described as, “I think more specifically a concern would be the guaranteed multi- use of the lands.” Meanwhile, others assumed that there would definitely be limitations to use in a conservation area. For example, “There may be conflict with ranchers and the hunting contingent of the population because of loss of access to hunting land concerns.” Similarly, another respondent reflected:

152

If I had to find any obstacles I would guess out there for something like that I would think it would be within the exterior boundaries of the reservation and it would be with those people that graze the area that is being set aside, or maybe they cut wood there, or maybe hunt there…doesn’t matter. If there is some kind of previous use, and I think ag [agriculture] use like grazing seems to really be an impediment to progress like that.

Others emphasized that loss of access and restriction to use were not part of the goal for a

Blackfeet Conservation Area:

There’s a large support for conservation here but if you use the wrong terms people get the idea of ‘Hey we aren’t going to be able to access this anymore.’ That kind of idea, or ‘Hey they’re taking away our grazing lands and we’re already short on grazing lands’ so really being clear that it will be community defined. What it is going to be used for is going to be defined by the community, not top down ‘Hey you can’t do this here anymore.’

Community Needs

Beyond land conservation, respondents identified immediate needs for basic services in the communities of the Blackfeet Nation and that the needs of the community were the first priority.

One interviewee explained, “The result that people would buy-in to the most would be programs that help the people, whether it be elder programs, or children programs, or adult education.”

Others discussed needing to consider future generations in making decisions, “What legacy do we want to leave to our grandchildren?” The need to balance grazing livelihoods and conservation was also highlighted in interviews. The question proposed by one interviewee was,

“What is best for the tribe long-term?” Another respondent shared that the benefits of tourism development need to be made apparent to the community to generate support:

Tourism is sometimes a hard sell because people say ‘What is in it for me?’ but they don’t realize the trickle-down benefits from tourism sites would be realized by Blackfeet businesses…The team proposing the Blackfeet National Park needs to make clear the revenue generation potential in the proposal that is given to the community.

153

Though many respondents identified benefits to the community of creating a conservation area, the importance of addressing immediate concerns and needs of the Blackfeet Nation were also emphasized:

It is just that the need is so strong for help to the people. You know from the infants being born addicted to meth to the young mothers put into sexual slavery and subjected to drug and alcohol addiction and high high numbers of suicides of all ages, and again it’s about the people and their needs. And it’s about them and carrying the torch, it could be a very good effort for everyone involved if it helped the people and not the black hole of government. Which is where we learned this, from our state and federal governments, to make things top heavy and use the grant dollars and continue the funding and use it or lose it mentality. Yet the needs are still there for the people.

Another concern was losing more land to conservation when the tribal land base is already too small to accommodate a growing tribe:

So, I think there is a lot of pressure and demand on that small million and a half acres to provide homesites, and hunting, and grazing and wood cutting and all those different things. And then to have someone come up and say yeah but we want to create a park it’s like, there’s already one park over there you took out of our hide.

Ecological Conservation

On the topic of how the potential Blackfeet Conservation Area would impact ecological conservation efforts, respondents discussed several potential benefits and concerns of creating a conservation area. The relationships between a conservation area and the return of buffalo to the landscape as wildlife (the Iinnii Initiative) was a frequently brought up topic in the interviews.

Relationship Between Buffalo and a Potential Conservation Area

The potential for a relationship between the Iinnii program and a conservation area was mentioned by several respondents. One interviewee shared, “So, I really, my interest is that piece of land there should be put into a reserve, a park, and be there for wildlife, and buffalo should be part of it returned to their land.” Respondents had differing perspectives regarding buffalo returning to the landscape as wildlife. One respondent described these varying perspectives in the

154

community as, “Not all tribal members are of the same mindset regarding conservation and sustainably managing the grassland resources and allowing buffalo back on the landscape.”

Some people were in support of the buffalo: “Absolutely, the Iinnii should be a part of that landscape again.” One reason for this support was the benefit to the community of buffalo reintroduction: “It is important to the community to have the Buffalo back.”

The ecological benefits of returning buffalo to the landscape were also identified:

So, I think it is a good thing if it comes to fruition and I think it will slowly get there. But that is what I want to see is for that ground to return to some real good environment, I guess. And buffalo are really environmentally friendly, they don’t overgraze if they get enough area, they aren’t tough on riparian areas, and they can survive any kind of weather really. So, I think it is a good thing if we can get that up and going.

Others had hesitations about the ecological impacts associated with bison: “Other area I heard mentioned to put buffalo on is the ceded strip along the Badger-Two Medicine. There the land is not ready for buffalo in that area because there was a fire a couple years ago followed by strong winds and that area is now highly eroded.” Additionally, there are conflicts between buffalo and the ranching community: “You are going to run into some issues running Buffalo that close to people’s cattle” and “a lot of the ranchers would say, oh yeah, they will just tear up our fences and they’re doing this and that. And I said, you know they are just like cattle, they aren’t going to do that unless you chase them.”

Concerns and Ecological Impacts

The impacts of the potential Blackfeet Conservation Area on wildlife and the natural environment were shared by several respondents. For example, “That is one of the most used bear corridors in the lower 48. That drainage is just like a bear highway, what is going to happen when you put people even more in the way of these bear corridors.” Planning for impacts of buffalo fencing on wildlife corridors was also a concern:

155

[Will need] taller posts and more wire to keep buffalo in. Also, if the fence is that big, how will wildlife pass through? Wildlife corridors would need to be planned, even if buffalo will be wildlife in the conservation area and the forest service land, how will they be managed to stay away from homes and grazing leases without blocking wildlife?

Another respondent described concerns about the impacts on the land of increased visitation as,

“The park should only be open seasonally and closed during some of the year to allow the land to come back. Though even with a closure people would be going in when they shouldn’t.”

Ecological Goals and Wildlife Habitat Potential

Potential ecological benefits of a conservation area included increased habitat: “it could provide more habitat, although that’s a hard one too. If you are providing more habitat for grizzlies are, they going to be more prevalent? Or are they not going to wander out onto the cattle ranges so much. But at this point who knows.” A conservation area was identified as a potential draw for wildlife: “And if it is a protected area and is restricted then you know the animals will come out they will know they are protected there too it is a place for them to stop.” Increased habitat was suggested by a couple respondents as a potential benefit to keeping grizzly bears away from cattle: “the development of the conservation area would maybe give grizzlies somewhere to go on the reservation that is away from working ranches.” There may be unknown impacts that were described by interviewees: “I could see it make predation worse or making a good buffer zone. It could go either way.”

The impacts that unsustainable grazing practices have on the landscape were discussed by interviewees. The intention to manage a potential conservation area more sustainably than reservation land is currently managed was presented by this respondent:

I was headed up to Chief Mountain on that road up there and the ground is just bare, there are cattle all over, and it wasn’t Blackfeet cattle it was outside cattle, and tourists driving up through there going up to Chief Mountain and to Waterton through there, and it was sad for me to see. And I pulled into the Canadian park side and you could just see the difference. The grass was all high, it was all clean, no cattle there.

156

Another respondent suggested that a lack of conservation ethic in managing of the entire reservation is an issue:

The whole reservation should be conservation lands. There shouldn’t have to be areas set aside for conservation of grass and wildlife, the whole reservation should be managed with a conservation ethic. All management should be sustainable, with management of weeds and conserving of grass from overgrazing.

Balances among Themes

In many if the interview responses, there was not a clear line drawn between economic development, cultural benefits, and ecological conservation. However, the relationships among these three themes were discussed in terms of when cultural interests and economic development could potentially be at odds, as well as the importance of balancing economic development and ecological conservation. Ensuring community access is not lost to tourism development was brought up by several interviewees. For example, “There needs to be a balance between access for the community and benefits to the youth with the needs and interests of tourism.” Balancing traditional activities and economic development was described as “Would it be like an American

Prairie Reserve on the Blackfeet Reservation—providing a way for members to harvest in the traditional way and make money?” The nexus of economic activities, culture, and conservation was shared as “because the reservation has limited resources and Stockgrowers already turn a fairly low profit, what do ideas like the conservation area and the grass-fed beef label mean for the bottom-line/livelihoods of these people?”

The potential for hunting and wildlife conservation with tourism was also described by one respondent, “Hunting could coexist with the conservation area- elk viewing areas maybe have to alter boundary/have some restricted areas where elk aren’t hunted so people can view safely.” Another interviewee focused on the need to balance commercial development for tourism with the integrity of the natural landscapes, “But I think back to the point of protecting

157

these natural areas in there, native and pristine in a non-commercialized way. And that is a hard balance, commercially developing something but keeping it not commercially developed.” This balance between conservation and community member livelihoods was also described by another respondent as “the challenge of balancing conservation with other economic endeavors which might provide more immediate returns on investment to the community.” Similarly, one respondent felt that reintroducing buffalo as wildlife needed to be balanced with current economic uses of the land, “It is important for the tribe to show that putting buffalo on conservation landscape would be better financially for the tribe and the environment long term”

General Challenges

There were challenges to creating a Blackfeet Conservation Area identified within the categories of tourism and economic development, cultural benefits, and ecological conservation discussed earlier in this chapter. However, there were some general concerns or challenges to overcome that were presented by interview respondents that were outside the scope of the previously identified c categories. These challenges will be important to consider for potential conservation area development. The first category of general challenges that was discussed by almost all interviewees was the private land ownership and grazing leases on the Blackfeet Reservation.

There were also challenges regarding distrust in the process, resistance to change in the community, and political dynamics.

Land Ownership and Grazing

Most interview respondents indicated that grazing leases and private land ownership would likely be the biggest challenge to overcome. As this respondent described, “The fear of private money going into a tribal enterprise and it failing, we have a long history of businesses failing on the reservation. Economically that hurdle of private land ownership, I just don’t even see it

158

possible. Might as well try and buy the park back.” Another respondent referred to this challenge as,

Other respondents described potential conflicts with the ranching industry, “I think it is the producers right now that we have to work on.” This interviewee described similar conflicts:

“Grazing conflicts need to be addressed in the feasibility study, but also would like to see the stock industry loosen its grip on the reservation and so maybe limiting grazing land would be good?”

The concerns from the ranching industry regarding the proposal mostly revolved around concerns regarding loss of grazing access and impacts on livelihoods. For example, “There may be conflict with ranchers and the hunting contingent of the population because of loss of access to hunting land concerns.” As another interviewee explained, “Putting ranchers out of business with removing leases for use as conservation area. Worried that a conservation lands program would compete with community members for ranching leases which gets in the way of economic wellbeing of community members.” One respondent described a past conservation project proposal that was not completed due to opposition from a rancher:

We were interested in setting aside Alkali Lake as a protection area and just managing it for waterfowl. And there was this one rancher and because it would affect his grazing, he was just totally opposed to it you know. Kind of shot it in the head, so I just think that is where some of the challenges would come from.

Distrust and Resistance to Change

Interview respondents indicated that there was distrust in programs and projects like the

Blackfeet Conservation Area because there have been proposals like this in the past. One

159

interviewee shared, “They are painting a pretty picture, but not sure how it’s going to work.”

This distrust was attributed to past projects failing, “because they have been promised these things before and not delivered.” Also presented by one respondent was a distrust over how other projects are managed: “concerned that a conservation area would end up operating in the same way that other programs do on the reservation, where the family of the program director benefits but the general community does not.”

There was also an expressed resistance to change in the community that could result in community members’ hesitation about the conservation area project:

In the 80s, there was a tribal game code introduced which involved many public meetings and a community involvement process. Not everyone was happy with the idea. In this case, some people wanted hunting to stay the way it was and the same will be true with the Blackfeet National Park proposal.

Some of this resistance was attributed to concerns regarding how changes would impact tribal member rights: “Because there are a lot of people who don’t want tourism on the Blackfeet reservation. There are a lot of people, elders who fought non-member hunting for instance.

Because it impeded on their own hunting rights to some degree.”

Political Dynamics

Political dynamics were discussed by respondents as a potential inhibitor to the conservation area proposal. Referring to another recent project one interviewee described tribal politics as, “The tribe didn’t support it because they didn’t get to be involved enough and got their feelings hurt and that’s how it works in Blackfeet Country.” Another interviewee explained that, “When you’ve been around here, and I have been here a lot of years, politics. They will make you or break you.” Describing the lengthy process of getting all the different political entities on the reservation on board for a project remains a challenge:

160

Some guys came in and thought, oh yeah, people that have come newly to the tribe thought they could do this right now. And I have been working here a long time and I know the politics, and the ins and outs of what you do and what is accepted and what’s not. And it isn’t going to happen overnight. There are a lot of entities you have to work with to make sure everyone is on board.

In describing political dynamics as they have related to the management of tribal campgrounds, one interviewee presented some challenges of working with tribal government:

We hired some tribal members to run the KOA and they were making money and it was going fine but tribal politics got involved and it was leased to a non-member again. So that is one of the challenges, sometimes the tribal government can’t keep their hands out of the pie so to speak.

Another respondent described challenges with tribal politics as, “Monies often get appropriated into what I will refer to as the ‘black hole’ of tribal government. Because those programs very little makes it back to the people to actually pay their heat bill when there are 8-people overseeing the distribution of those funds.”

The Planning Process

Respondents offered suggestions regarding the necessary planning process including stakeholder engagement process, appropriate timeline to development, internal relationships, and relationships with partners. There were also thoughts provided by respondents about ways to communicate the project to the community and appropriate names for the conservation area.

Stakeholder Engagement

The importance of engaging the community, even those in the community who may not initially be supportive of the Blackfeet Conservation Area proposal, was identified as central to the success of the project. Including different groups and perspectives in the community was brought up by several respondents, as this person explained, “We want to be invited to the planning stages, want to be included.” Similarly, another respondent shared:

161

It isn’t going to happen overnight. There are a lot of entities you have to work with to make sure everyone is on board. Then I think after all of that things would happen quickly, but that is the biggest thing, is getting everybody on board.

One interviewee stressed that the project needed to be shaped by the larger community: “The conservation area will not succeed if it is one tribal member’s entrepreneurial project. Has to be a community supported initiative.” Another explained that, “Not all tribal members are of the same mindset regarding conservation and sustainably managing the grassland resources and allowing buffalo back on the landscape. But they still need to be included in the discussions and planning process.” Another respondent highlighted that the consultation process will be an extensive undertaking due to the difficulties of getting people to participate in meetings:

You would have to have public meetings in the different communities, like you know Babb, Starr School Heart Butte. And you would have to have some sort of drawing card, people on the reservation are pretty apathetic, they don’t seem to want to go to a meeting just because it sounds interesting. I think you would really need to have a booth during NA Indian Days or plan an Indian relay and then have information there. You know I think you would really need to have a captive audience somehow you know or go to the rodeos. I have no idea how you would pull that off, but that’s kind of the hard part is, the public don’t seem to really come out for meetings like they should, and then when you start trying to implement one small group of people could kill the whole project because then they find out how it might affect them and then they are interested. So I don’t know how you get those people kind of talking up front so you can address and mitigate it you know without jeopardizing the whole idea.

Some specific stakeholder groups were identified as important to the consultation process. One interviewee said that it will be important to, “Talk with the grandmothers and talk with the mothers.” This respondent also said there will need to be, “A mix of people from different uses, really looking at that part and weighing out opinions of sportsmen, as well as environmental protection, and of course animal rights and protection.” The relevant groups to include were described as:

You’re going to need producers, hunters, you know everybody. You know most people are representative of multiple versions of that [stakeholder groups]. Yeah, I mean the park needs to be a part, even I don’t know how much the state needs to be involved

162

exactly but I would imagine in some capacity. And then oh yeah, DOT and then there are BIA roads, and all sorts of stuff so you will need to have a lot of people there as well as Lewis and Clark National Forest and all those different folks. That will be important, it will save on the back end a lot of trouble. Rather than getting your stuff done and then asking for input, and saying sorry…

Regarding the process of how to consult with community members, many respondents said a formal planning process would be important: “I think by listening and valuing everybody’s opinions and concerns about it with you know, public meetings. And if you have ever been to a public meeting in Blackfeet Country, it can get pretty heated depending on the subject. Everyone is pretty opinionated.” The process and what needs to be planned for were described by another respondent as, “Needs to be approached like any big idea that impacts tribal people, needs to have a formal planning process with proposed actions, and public meetings. Absolutely needs to show funding, what land is to be proposed.” Another interviewee explained that, “The project and planning process needs to be thoughtful and patient, has to be owned by the stakeholders.”

Several respondents acknowledged that the public engagement process can be complicated but is necessary. One interviewee highlighted the difficulty with public meetings as,

“yeah, having to sit through derogatory and negativity and hypothetical positivity. There are so many pieces to a public meeting, weighing out the differences and coming up with a good plan is a very difficult task.” Another interviewee described the complications of the planning process:

In the 80s there was a tribal game code introduced which involved many public meetings and a community involvement process, not everyone was happy with the idea. In this case some people wanted hunting to stay the way it was and the same will be true with the Blackfeet National Park proposal, but meetings need to happen anyways.

Before the consultation process can begin, there were some steps that respondents identified as important. One interviewee described the necessary steps as:

I think it would work best, if the tribe had some entity, whether it was …or some entity that took the lead and then incorporated input from all the different tribal programs that would have a major role in it, and then once they start coming up with ideas regarding

163

how it would look, then you would have to have public meetings in the different communities.

Another interviewee explained that some planning needs to happen before engaging the public fully: “The tribe needs to decide what they “want” from this conservation area, need to start from the planning stage.” Clear plans for location was identified as an important component before involving the community: “there would be support depending on where the tribe puts the conservation area.”

Many questions emerged about the Blackfeet Conservation Area proposal that demonstrated a need for more clarifying and planning. One interviewee reflected:

Would there be hunting allowed? It would be a positive thing if buffalo hunting by general tribal members were allowed but would that be the reality? Would it be like an American Prairie Reserve on the Blackfeet Reservation, providing a way for members to harvest in the traditional way and make money?

Another respondent described hesitations from ranchers due to questions and concerns regarding limitations:

Stockgrowers on the reservation feel buffalo have no place on the reservation and that buffalo being put in the Badger-Two Medicine area butts heads with Stockgrowers in that area, especially people like ______. Part of the problem is that there is not a well-defined plan for a “conservation area” or “Tribal Park” and so people are only getting snippets of information. When stock growing families like ______don’t have a full plan to see how the proposed actions will impact their livelihoods that scares them.

Impressions of Timeline to Development

Impressions of timeline to development required for an inclusive planning process varied across respondents. Although respondents agreed that it would need to be a long process that incorporated community input and engagement. In regard to one potential location in the Badger-

Two Medicine area, one respondent said, “It would take 10-15 years for this area to recover from the fire and be ready for grazing by buffalo. This is potentially a good thing because it would allow for ample time to develop the necessary infrastructure and go through the planning

164

process.” Another interviewee suggested that the planning process alone would take a long period of time: “I would imagine two years would give you the opportunity to build your consensus as well as strategically pick your areas that you want to focus on and that the community wants to focus on.” Other interviewees thought the process would take longer: “I would see within the next 5 years. It is something that you can’t really force.” One respondent explained the process would be longer term to carefully purchase the necessary property, “and it might take you 10, 20 years but eventually you would have totally tribally owned land that you have controlled access to.” Additionally, an interviewee explained that an issue with the process would be political turnover and tribal council terms being shorter than the planning process:

Even if it takes time, 1, 5, 10 years to gather input and develop a plan. The challenge of this is that council terms are only 4 years and the political will of council could shift before the consulting with stakeholders is complete. However, if the concept is out there and developed well the community will drive it despite a potentially less conservation minded council.

Stakeholder Relationships

Partnering with transboundary partners in regard to both the Iinnii project and the Blackfeet

Conservation lands was identified as a potential aspect of planning for the conservation area project. For example, “Partnering with neighbors across the border in this conservation of land project.” Respondents also had suggestions for internal relationships within the tribe to achieve the conservation area: “Partnerships between projects will be important in his perspective for the success of Blackfeet National Park.” The importance of involving the Fish and Wildlife

Department was identified by several respondents. For example,

We would work with our fish and game, and we have already been really working with them to you know, in our fish and game code we never had anything for the protection of buffalo so we are already working with them to get protections for the buffalo put into the game code. We have had some you know poaching and there wasn’t a real code for repercussion. So, they would be monitoring up there daily, it would be part of their route, to go through there too.

165

Another interviewee explained, “Fish and Wildlife [Department] needs to be involved in making these decisions about wildlife habitat and allowable uses.” The tribe’s water compact was also an important partnership:

It would be important to tie it in with all the other opportunities out there, like the tribe’s water compact. We have a lot of water resources now that we will have control over and own that would enable us to do, you know, we could make this reservation look a lot different with more irrigation occurring. You know it wouldn’t even have to be all for ag [agriculture] production, it could be for improving the habitat and that would spin off into other areas.

Support for the project from external partners and the general public was mentioned several times. One respondent in the tourism and guiding group mentioned the interest that visitors have expressed during guided trips, “I have had many of my guests, outside tourists who have visited

Glacier and the Blackfeet reservation who would strongly support anything that could help the

Blackfeet People.” Another respondent described perceived support from the larger conservation community as, “I think the conservation community would be very enthusiastic about the idea of some sort of conservation area next to Glacier. Many of them feel like they still have scars from when oil and gas was the direction things were headed.” Several others described support from external partners as, “I think pretty much the outside entities are pretty ready to go for it.” An official from Glacier identified that the NPS is limited in their ability to adapt and create innovative planning, while NGO partners might be able to provide this support:

I am just not sure we are the most creative and the best ones to lead that thinking I mean we certainly want to bring our thinking to it but it very well might be WCS or someone who has more experience working around the world and more ways to crack this nut. You know the park service is limited to the way we do things in the United States and there are much more innovative things going on around the world they should be open to.

Impressions of GNP came up in many of the interviews. One respondent emphasized the intention to keep a potential Blackfeet Conservation Area from experiencing impacts on resources due to visitation as Glacier was expressed: “Well Glacier Park is a classic example of

166

overuse of a resource.” The historic loss of land to create GNP was also discussed by respondents. For example, “Because the peoples view is that Glacier National Park is their land.

It was sold out from under them at an economic time for I think 1.1 million dollars the government took out from under them for Glacier National Park.” Another interviewee described historical losses for the Blackfeet in the establishment of GNP:

Blackfeet People have a long memory, and what happened to Blackfeet People when we were talked into giving up Glacier Park has stuck in our claw for a long time. You read some of those early negotiations and narratives and it was like “you can’t eat the rock, we just want the rock, we just want to, you know talk about minerals, gold and silver. You can still hunt you can still fish, you know we heard that old song and dance. And then now there’s no hunting in there, no fishing in Glacier Park, no gathering wood. And yet that was ours you know. And so, when you look over there and see oh well that used to belong to us, and now you want to carve another part out of our ever-shrinking reservation?

Current concerns with GNP were also mentioned by respondents: “the relationship between the

NPS and tribal members is not equal, NPS tours use tribal land and ranch land but do not allow tribal members to do tours on the park land.” Meanwhile, others highlighted issues with fencing:

“There are already some fencing issues with the park. The park says ‘Hey, you’re responsible for putting up the fence on our boundary’, it makes no sense. Like, ‘We will fine them for coming onto our place, but we won’t fence our place off.’”

Grazing conflicts also emerged as a concern. For example, “Glacier National Park fines ranchers when cows enter the park, yet the NPS fails to maintain their own fences on the park boundary and that is why cows get in.” Historical conflicts with GNP regarding buffalo reintroduction were also discussed:

We were going to manage a buffalo herd where we just fenced them on the east side and used the geography and the river and the park as the boundary. And at the time Glacier park opposed it saying that bison were not naturally occurring in the park. But I think now Glacier park has you know got a different superintendent and it’s a little different now.

167

How the tribe is consulted regarding planning on the national park boundary was also brought up by one respondent:

You know it is interesting, they are still doing studies and work but they don’t come out and say ‘oh Blackfeet Tribe sit down and lets plan this’, normally we find out that oh they are going to be doing some work identifying genetics of west slope cutthroat, oh! and we would like permission to maybe do some work on the reservation and it is you know, we are always an afterthought which is a little perturbing. Yeah, so they aren’t the best neighbor, but they are sort of like, oh that neighbor that might invite you over once a year to have a cupcake or something.

In the realm of collaborating between the tribe and Glacier, one respondent was hopeful about opportunities for working together towards Blackfeet conservation efforts:

Is there an opportunity to do something innovative? I know our fee programs are very strict and look at the world with blinders on as far as the framework but at the same time yeah how can creativity be brought to bear on this sort of unique thing and I think that’s the thing you know, the superintendent from waterton and I tried to think about this, the Iinnii initiative and what comes with it as the next iteration of the international peace park, so it’s not adding to Waterton-Glacier but it’s a new entity in itself and as far as that collaboration and where it takes us you know, are there things that require parliamentary and congressional legislation that takes us to the next step?

The relationship with the USFS specifically in the management of the Badger-Two Medicine area was mentioned by several respondents. Conflicts with the USFS over management of the

Badger-Two Medicine was described as:

The management of the Badger-Two Medicine should be in the hands of tribal members- grazing leases are state cattle that the tribe does not benefit from, and tribal outfitting licenses do not work on Badger-Two Medicine land, tribal outfitters should be able to get into the Badger-Two Medicine rather than needing to pay for both a tribal and USFS outfitter permit.

Another interviewee suggested that a Blackfeet Conservation Area would support the efforts of co-managing the Badger-Two Medicine area. For example,

Badger-Two Medicine management of a conservation area and maintaining habitat in a conservation set aside would demonstrate to NPS and USFS that the tribe can manage land for conservation. This would probably be helpful in the Badger-Two Medicine co- management efforts.

168

Communication and Framing

Respondents had some ideas of ways that the Blackfeet Conservation Area idea could be presented to the Blackfeet community to ensure that it is clear that tribal conservation lands are different from the National Park Service. For example:

Need to make sure that Blackfeet People are not isolated by the Blackfeet National Park because that is what happened with Glacier. Need to show tribal members they will still have opportunity. It will be a hard sell but important to make it the norm, so you need to show tribal members what will be available to them, you know, programs, land access, tourism entrepreneurial opportunities.

One respondent described that there would be support from the community if the messaging described that limitation on access to the land were not the intention: “It needs to be explained how it won’t drive agricultural producers out, it’s not going to drive hunting out, it’s not going to do the same thing as the National Park.” It was also identified as important to show the community the benefits that could be realized:

It would take a lot of community outreach because people say ‘Hey, this is a national park or whatever…’ But I mean, a lot of people when you say we are going to be able to charge tourists to come through here they say, oh okay that makes more sense. As long as you don’t take away my hunting and fishing, which is not the goal at all.

Different Perspectives on a Name

Some respondents thought that the term ‘Park’ or ‘National Park’ is important for tourism and for taking back control of the term ‘National’. As one interviewee shared, “I see no problem with the term “Blackfeet National Park” because it is the tribe expressing their sovereignty as a

“Nation” and that name would hold some appeal and familiarity to visitors for tourism purposes.” Another person expressed support for the term ‘National’ for gathering interest from potential visitors, “But I think it would be good to call it the Blackfeet NATIONAL park because it does belong to the Blackfeet Nation. And that will help with some of the education pieces to

169

outsiders… that would be a good step on that front.” Another interviewee described similar benefits of the terminology for tourism purposes:

But I think if you are looking at tourism and capitalizing on tourism, you would have to say “Blackfeet National Park” or Blackfeet NATION Park” and that would draw your visitor who is looking for a park or somewhere to go, so to capitalize on that tourism that is what it would have to be. Of course, you could use the Blackfeet name for Chief Mountain. But I think then there has to be somewhere where the name park is, so that they know it is somewhere that they want to go see. Just like the rest of those, Yellowstone, Glacier…

This terminology was also defined as a way to express tribal sovereignty:

Blackfeet National Park is a way to regain the power of the terminology and what it means to the community and to take it back from the National Park Service. Understand the reasons why some in the community might be wary of the term, because of the historical weight it holds from the taking of land for the East Side of Glacier.

Other respondents associate the term ‘Park’ with displacement and loss. As one interviewee said,

“because the first thing that I think of when I hear the terms conservancy or national park is non- hunting, non-fishing.” One interviewee thought that the term Blackfeet National Park would only lead to confusion for visitors because “they might not understand the difference between the

Blackfeet Conservation Area and Glacier National Park because they aren’t from the area”.

Another respondent felt the term Tribal Park was not necessarily appropriate because, “the decision of naming is something that needs to be a thoughtful and driven by the culture and community to ensure it is culturally relevant.”

Mitigating Conflicts Through the Planning Process

One potential tool for ensuring community members are not impacted by a Blackfeet

Conservation Area was to identify exclusive areas for tribal members:

Should be an aspect of the feasibility study. There could be all types of access in one area for example, have a campground that is reserved for 60 percent tribal members, or exclusive tribal areas in the park. The community would really like the idea of having exclusive tribal access areas.

170

Several others described the need to allow for multiple-uses: “Wording of the conservation code would need to include a variety of uses by tribal members: hunting, traditional uses and gathering, recreation- horse-back riding, hiking to be determined by people in the community.”

One interviewee suggested the potential for multi-use models like those used by the USFS, “I think the forest service has that sort of multiple use concept; you can usually figure out a way to go down that road.” Another suggested some potential uses for inclusion:

Yeah, I mean there needs to be access for hunting, if you are going to use it for grazing there needs to be fair rates set in a fair way but it will also take some management to ensure that overgrazing is not common and you know, as well as some forestry options.

Associating the conservation project with the ARMP process could be beneficial because:

I think it can help, maybe from a producer’s perspective they realize it is being developed with agriculture in mind vs. just somebody trying to protect their animals or just one conservation thing, but rather it could be used for multiple property uses for people to make use of.

Respondents identified the need to plan for how the conservation lands will impact the people and the land. For example, “Careful planning will be needed to think about wildlife corridors, fencing needs and impacts on wildlife, cost of infrastructure, impacts on ranching families.”

Another respondent emphasized the “Need to allow access to tribal members across the board, make it fair. Need to be careful in the planning process.” Some interviewees were concerned about impacts of returning buffalo to the landscape: “the idea of putting buffalo on the proposed park lands without careful planning, have they thought about things like fencing, and if not fencing cattle introgression, and vaccines/disease concerns for ranchers living in that area if there are free-roaming buffalo.” Another described impacts of removing cattle leases for buffalo:

Well I think the challenges are going to be, what are the uses that are going to change? I mean with the Iinnii there is a long history of cattle ranching on the Blackfeet reservation so to think we would potentially not be doing so much of that. Or any of that in this protected area would be a huge change for some of these people.

171

The importance of including programs that benefit tribal members was also shared, “programs that could help the people I think would be key to get the public support.” Another interviewee echoed the need for demonstration of benefits to the get support from the community:

…that planning effort you talked about. I think that might be one of the first tasks is to identify an area or areas that would fit that bill and then go to tribal membership to see how that might work. What they would swallow. But you know I think if you did it properly you would be able to show how many jobs it would create; how much income would come into the tribe and that. What other kinds of spin-offs that would occur? Some kind of economic analysis that would show tribal benefits would really be key.

Another important step in the planning process to prevent future conflicts was determining ahead of time which departments would be responsible for different aspects of management:

I mean it needs to be laid out pretty clearly who is responsible for what. This is something already going on with who’s responsible for the Many Glacier road. Where they are trying to say the tribe is responsible for it but the tribe isn’t making any money off of it and …yeah you know, who is responsible for, needs to be lined out clearly and they need to say alright this is who is involved and who takes care of what. Rather than saying ‘Hey, you’re responsible for this now, good luck.’

A couple of respondents suggested that the project would be best if approached in small parcels.

For example, “part of this planning it will be important to have someone on the ground to be looking for feasible locations for things such as fencing. Not just drawing a line around a large area, but carefully choosing locations where the project is feasible.” Another interviewee thought that the best approach would be if, “So I don’t know to me I think the concept would work better, say if you took Looking Glass road that area up there and you focused all your energy on securing fee land and allotted land that exists in there, and made land trades.”

Discussion

Balancing Multiple Uses

Respondents described a variety of uses that could take place in the conservation area ranging from solitude experiences to guided tours to cultural demonstrations for visitors. Additionally,

172

others mentioned maintaining working landscapes and engaging in agritourism activities.

Respondents also recognized that a major challenge would be working with ranchers because of competition for a limited land base for conservation and grazing leases. The challenge will be balancing the needs of economic development (e.g. tourism activities) with cultural activities

(e.g. traditional food access, hunting, spiritual ceremonies) and resource conservation (e.g. conserving grasslands and riparian areas, wildlife management). Many Blackfeet interviewees described concerns regarding limitations on types of use in a potential conservation area including losses of hunting and grazing access. Managing for multiple uses is complex, for the

Navajo Nation conflicts have arisen when visitors with backcountry permits come into contact with cattle and sheep in leased grazing areas (Halne’e, 2019). Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the impacts of grazing on the integrity of archeological ruins and cultural resources at the UMUTP (Mimiaga, 2018).

The challenges of balancing the ecological functions of a protected area with the recreational or tourism and resource use needs have been researched worldwide (DeFries,

Hansen, Turner, Reid, & Liu, 2007; Milder, Buck, DeClerck, & Scherr, 2012). One challenge is a decreasing undeveloped land base and conflicting uses for these increasingly fragmented areas

(DeFries et al., 2007). In conflicts between ecological conservation and resource use, researchers have suggested one way to address conflicts is to approach land-use planning at a landscape level, creating ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes (Milder et al., 2012). In the recreational use of conservation lands the conflicts between user groups include different experience expectations

(Spencer, 2012), and maintaining trails and recreational areas for impacts from different uses

(Beeton, 2006).

173

In Blackfeet Country, one of the challenges of balancing economic wellbeing with conservation is the nonlabor income that members of the community receive from renting and leasing land for uses such as grazing. This income is generated from dividends, interest payments, rent, and transfer payments. Transfer payments are government assistance payments for hardship and age-related needs (Lawson, Rasker, & Gude, 2014). In 2018, nonlabor income in Glacier County from dividends, interest, and rent comprised 22% of total income (U.S.

Department of Commerce, 2019). With lands transitioning to conservation areas, the impacts on the livelihoods of those earning income from rent and leases must be considered. If grazing leases are shifted or removed for conservation uses, this could result in a loss of potentially significant income for some members of the Blackfeet Nation.

An additional challenge that was discussed by interviewees was the conflict between ranching and conservation proposals because of competition for a limited land base for leases.

While some respondents were concerned about the loss of unearned income if grazing leases went to conservation, others mentioned the prevalence of non-native ranchers using reservation grazing leases. These respondents described their personal interest in less non-native ranchers using land on the reservation. Scholars have addressed the prevalence of this phenomena on

Native American reservations across the Nation (Anaya, 2012; Geisler, 2013; Iverson, 1994).

Some of the issues with this model are that the land is often leased for less than its market value and income from the farming of this land does not go to tribal members (Anaya, 2012).

According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture for American Indian Reservations, of 861 farms on the Blackfeet Reservation, only 335 are operated by Native Americans (United States

Department of Agriculture, 2014). The encroachment of nonnative cattle grazing on the

Blackfeet reservation has been an issue since the 1800s when the trespass of cattle on the

174

reservation without compensation to tribal members was of frequent concern. This is demonstrated by acting agent to the Blackfeet Reservation (1893-1895), Lorenzo Cooke: “White men living on that side adjacent to the reserve…[are] undoubtedly located there for the purpose of grazing their stock on the Indian’s domain” (quoted in Foley, 1974:170).

It was important to many respondents that livelihoods and activities of the community were not impacted by a potential conservation area. Additionally, the planning process should involve the community in determining the management of multiple uses in the conservation area.

One of the significant components of the Tribal Park or ICCA model is that is allows for indigenous groups to exercise sovereignty over the allowable uses and how to manage these diverse uses. In terms of engagement of the community in decision making regarding uses,

Dasiqox has the best example of this in the form of the “Community Vision and Management

Goals” document which involved interviews and extensive consultation with the communities of the Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in regarding uses in Dasiqox. In Thaidene Nene beyond the negotiations and formal planning process with Parks Canada, there was also consultation with the community regarding interests, concerns, and ideas for acceptable tourism ventures. In interviews with the Blackfeet, there were diverse perspectives regarding what types of land uses and activities would be permitted within a Blackfeet Conservation Area and how these decisions will impact the local livelihoods.

When determining the desired uses for a potential Blackfeet Conservation Area, balancing tourism impacts with cultural and conservation interests must be considered. One interviewee described concerns about commercialization for tourism purposes in a Blackfeet

Conservation Area. Several others described concerns that a Blackfeet Conservation Area would be overrun by visitors like GNP, to the point that community members would no longer want to

175

visit. The ability for experiences of solitude for members of the Blackfeet Nation are dependent on undisturbed natural areas. There are concerns regarding commercialization for recreation and tourism are that the already diminished places for these experiences could disappear (Bodily,

2014; Sax & Keiter, 2006). One of the identified consequences of cultural tourism development is commercialization of the community (Archer et al., 2005) and inconsistencies between what the community is willing to open to the public and interests of visitors (Carr et al., 2016;

Pettersson & Viken, 2007).

The name for the conservation area can reflect the types of uses that are important to the

Blackfeet while also attracting tourism. Several interview respondents expressed interest in the

Tribal Park or Tribal National Park title to encourage visitation by reflecting the terminology used by the NPS. In contrast, others felt that the term Tribal Park reflected historical displacement and loss associated with GNP. In the survey conducted by the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the University of Montana, visitors were asked about interest in a potential Blackfeet Conservation Area (See Appendix B for more survey information).

Respondents were randomly assigned a survey that used either the term “Blackfeet Tribal Park” or “Blackfeet Conservation Area” throughout the survey to assess if the title reflected differences in the survey responses. This study showed there was no statistically significant difference in potential visitor interest between the two terms, suggesting that terminology might not be the most important determining factor for visitors. Therefore, terminology that represents the culture and interests of the community should be the priority.

Other Tribal Parks have made decisions on their name for diverse reasons. At Frog Bay

Tribal National Park, the choice to use the term Tribal National Park was described as a way to exercise tribal authority over the term national and show that it was open to everyone (Interview

176

Transcript, 2018). At Dasiqox Tribal Park, the Tsilhqot’in Nation chose to have two names, one was Dasiqox Tribal Park after one of the watersheds in the region, the other was Nexwagwez?an which means “there for us” and reflects the intentions of the Tribal Park as a place for the community (Community Vision and Management Goals, 2018). At Thaidene Nene the name which means “Land of the Ancestors” was chosen by elders of the LKDFN to reflect the LKDFN connection to the area (“Chronology”, 2017).

Place-naming is identified as a tool for exercising power and politics over a landscape, and creating a cultural sense of place (Alderman, 2016). The naming of culturally significant locations by indigenous groups has been described as holding weight and facilitating place- making (Basso, 1996). The re-naming of geographical features by settler-colonists in North

America after white figures has led to loss of historical knowledge of a place (Whitt, 2009). In many cases across North America, mountains, rivers and valleys were either renamed, or the regional indigenous name was poorly or offensively translated (Brulliard, 2019). The relationship between name and connection to place has been documented as significant in

Blackfeet relationship to GNP. Before the creation of GNP, a delegation of Blackfeet Nation leaders visited Washington D.C. to request that the NPS not rename the natural features with meaningless white names (Keller and Turek, 1998).

Relationship to Glacier National Park and Conservation Groups

The proximity of the Blackfeet Nation to GNP offers an opportunity to capture visitation and revenue from the national park visitors. Ideas include providing activities in the Blackfeet

Conservation Area that are not permitted in the NPS mission, such as mountain biking and fenced-off bear-free camping. Other interviewees suggested strategies to alleviate congestion in

GNP by supporting tourism in Blackfeet Conservation Area, such as tours into the Many Glacier

177

valley to relieve congestion and providing picnic areas on the reservation. Community-based tourism has been identified as a tool to ensure communities benefit from tourism development, socially and economically (Salazar, 2012). However, the community must be interested in pursuing tourism development in order to gain buy-in in the process (Li, 2006). The interest of

Blackfeet interview respondents in collaborating with the GNP on managing visitation could be the beginning of a community-based tourism strategy between the Blackfeet Nation and GNP.

The relationship to federal land management agencies emerged as critical to the planning and success of a tribal conservation area. The United States conservation movement of the early

20th century involved the removal and displacement of tribal groups nationwide (Spence, 1999;

Middleton, 2011). Additionally, tribes were restricted in their access and use of the land for hunting, gathering, and spiritual uses. Many tribes associate parks with loss of access, limitations of use, and dispossession (Berkes, 2009). Several interview respondents reflected on the historical and current relationship with GNP and the NPS. Respondents discussed the losses of tribal land and access due to the establishment of GNP in addition to conflicts along the park boundary and the shortcomings of GNP regarding consultation with the tribe. It was noted that while the NPS tries to engage with the tribe, often the discussion is perceived as an afterthought rather than engaging with the tribe from the beginning. Concern over levels of inclusion in decision making are not isolated to the relationship between the Blackfeet Nation and GNP.

Federal agencies in the United States have been found to consistently include tribes in consultation late in the planning process, and not adequately incorporate tribal input regarding infrastructure projects (Haskew, 1999).

For the Blackfeet Nation and the NPS to coordinate regional tourism development, there is a need to further strengthen relationships and collaborative approaches to support the innovate

178

partnership. However, limitations in the NPS model were also identified by tribal members. For example, one interviewee asked, what does it look like to have a truly coordinated tourism plan between the tribe and the NPS? Respondents identified lack of tribal member benefits from past and current GNP projects. Respondents also described the importance of ensuring that any

Blackfeet Conservation Area or partnership with GNP benefits tribal members economically. In other Tribal Park case studies, relationships between federal and provincial land management agencies varied. For UMUTP and Navajo Parks and Rec, the economic opportunities from regional tourism to NPS units was described as a motivator for Tribal Park development (Torres-

Reyes, 1970; Sanders, 1996). However, it appears that there have been struggles to balance the missions and interests of the NPS with Tribal Parks (Burnham, 2000; Friesema, 1996). Despite some of the challenges in NPS and tribe partnerships, most of the Tribal Parks have partnerships in place with the NPS. For example, the Navajo Nation is working with the NPS on a co- management plan for Canyon de Chelly National Monument, LKDFN chose to pursue a partnership with Parks Canada for Thaidene Nene to achieve their needs regarding resource protection (Carmichael, 2015), and the Red Cliff Band is working with the NPS on lakeshore protection and fisheries management (Interview Transcript, 2018).

Historically the National Park Service has been a centralized top-down land management agency, building parts of the NPS land base by negotiating lands from tribes (King, 2007).

Increasingly, federal land management agencies and Tribes and First Nations are recognizing the need to collaborate in the management of conservation lands (Donoghue, Thompson, & Bliss,

2010; King, 2007; Matthews, Higley, Hilty, & Wang, 2008). One defining characteristic that differentiates the Tribal Park model from the National Park model is the ability for a bottom-up decision-making process that approaches the process in a more holistic manner (Murray & King,

179

2012). Despite increases in collaboration efforts there are some identified structural limitations that hinder collaboration. For example, the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (managed by

Parks Canada) and the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks have made strides towards benefit sharing despite Parks Canada not having a framework in place to support shared authority or indigenous community engagement (Murray & King, 2012). An additional limitation is that often participatory projects are directed by outsiders rather than indigenous community members

(Colchester, 1996). Another identified challenge is meaningful incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge and community values into decisions and collaborative management

(Donoghue et al., 2010).

Although there are challenges associated with the limitations of the federal system, ways to coordinate with residents in conservation area gateway communities to facilitate engagement, and community benefits are increasing in focus (Mitchell, Slaiby, & Benedict, 2002).

Researchers have suggested that one way to approach co-management effectively is to treat it like an adaptive management process, not as an end itself but a way to facilitate communication between parties (Carlsson & Berkes, 2005). In the United States, recent federal actions such as the Native American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience (NATIVE) Act of 2016 promises to increase coordination and collaboration between federal tourism assets and tribal tourism opportunities (Department of the Interior, 2017). The USFS is also attempting to increase collaboration in management through projects such as huckleberry management with the Yakima tribe in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington (Donoghue et al., 2010).

Role of Buffalo in Tribal Conservation Efforts

Since the 1990s, the resurgence in tribal projects to reintroduce buffalo to the landscape have been recognized as tools for meeting cultural, economic, and ecological goals (Braun, 2008).

180

These efforts have also been identified for their part preserving large tracts of land for habitat, which supports large landscape connectivity (Sanderson et al., 2008). Researchers have described tribal buffalo projects as a catalyst for tribal conservation efforts, including Tribal

Parks (Torbit & LaRose, 2001). Blackfeet interview respondents indicated the benefits of buffalo reintroduction to the landscape, the economic benefits from tourism, and the cultural significance of returning the sacred animal to the landscape.

The draw for visitors to see buffalo was recognized as an opportunity for a Blackfeet

Conservation Area with activities such as hayrides and tours through the buffalo habitat. One respondent described how a buffalo tour program would require limited financial investment, while providing needed jobs to community members as guides. However, other respondents were concerned that the economic benefits of returning buffalo to the landscape would not be sufficient to make up for the economic losses to ranchers. Non-consumptive wildlife related tourism has expanded in interest globally (Barnes, Burgess, & Pearce, 1992; Duffus & Dearden,

1990; Wilson & Tisdell, 2003). Wildlife viewing tourism has been responsible for large financial contributions to wildlife viewing destinations (Duffus & Dearden, 1990). Specifically, interest in buffalo viewing has become a reason for visitor interest in visiting the plains of North America.

In a study of visitors to Yellowstone National Park, 50 percent of visitors described buffalo as one reason for their visit (Auttelet, 2015). Additionally, a study by the Institute for Tourism and

Recreation Research at the University of Montana showed that nonresident visitors to the state of

Montana indicated that the high likelihood of seeing free roaming buffalo played a large role in increased interest to visit Northeastern Montana (Sage, 2017). Using buffalo as part of a project to create a Tribal Park was attempted by the Lakota of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation beginning in 1997. Plans were in place for a buffalo range with driving tours, an interpretive

181

center, campground, and wagon rides; yet, this Tribal Park was never developed in part due to lack of financial capital for necessary infrastructure improvements (Braun, 2008).

Buffalo were described in interviews as central to the culture of the Blackfeet and returning of these animals to the landscape as important for the community. The connection of plains tribes to buffalo herds is central to the dialogue on returning buffalo to the landscape. The loss of buffalo on the landscape has been described as a loss of cultural connection (Braun, 2008;

Lulka, 2006). Reintroduction of these animals to tribal lands is identified as important to healing tribal people and the buffalo (Intertribal Buffalo Council, 2019). Interviews and the Agriculture

Resources Management Plan describe the significance of buffalo to the traditional diet of the

Blackfeet and health benefits to the community of reinstituting this meat into the diet. The exact health benefits of grass-fed buffalo meat over beef needs further research (Braun, 2008; Lulka,

2006; Marchello & Driskell, 2001; Rorabacher, 1970). However, buffalo meat has been shown to be low in cholesterol and fat (Lulka, 2006), as well as being high in omega 3 fatty acids and essential nutrients (Braun, 2008; Lulka, 2006; Marchello & Driskell, 2001).

When discussing the ecological impacts of wild buffalo herds on the landscape, one respondent described the environmentally friendly nature of buffalo grazing in comparison to the grazing habits of cattle. Though more research is identified as needed, there has been research that suggests when paired with prescribed fire, buffalo could be an important part of biodiversity in prairie grasslands (Coppedge & Shaw, 1998). Other respondents expressed concerns about bison fencing impacting wildlife corridors. For example, if buffalo were free roaming on federal agency and tribal conservation area land, there would need to be fencing to mitigate conflicts with homesites and cattle leases. In a study of free roaming bison reintroduction in Romania, concerns were expressed by local residents regarding impacts of the newly introduced animal on

182

their property and farming livelihoods (Vasile, 2018). The sociopolitical aspects of species reintroductions have been identified as one of the most challenging components to navigate.

These aspects often include public resistance to change and the unfamiliarity with the behaviors of that species (Clark, Huber, & Seryheen, 2002; Reading, Clark, & Kellert, 2002). In the

Blackfeet interview responses, concerns regarding brucellosis transmission to cattle were not mentioned, however in other communities near free roaming buffalo (Yellowstone, American

Prairie Reserve) community members have raised concerns regarding brucellosis transmission from buffalo to cattle, despite most documented transmissions occurring from elk to cattle

(Auttelet, 2015; Rhyan et al., 2013).

Interview respondents described perceived support from various partners for free- roaming buffalo reintroduction. An example of this support for the program is the multi-species action plan for Waterton Lakes National Park which describes intentions to continue to support the Iinnii initiative and efforts to restore free-roaming bison to Montana and Alberta (Thomas,

2017). The relationship between the Iinnii initiative of the Blackfoot Confederacy and Waterton-

Glacier National Peace Park provides a unique opportunity not only for exploring the co- management between a federal land management agency and a tribal buffalo program, but also transboundary partnerships between the United States (GNP and the Blackfeet Nation) and the

Canadian partners (Waterton Lakes National Park and the Kainai Nation, Piikani Nation, and

Siksika Nation). Though the relationship between the Iinnii initiative and GNP does not appear to be a formal co-management agreement, it has begun to be used as a model for tribal nation federal land management agency management partnerships. In a study of the Iinnii initiative, the return of free roaming buffalo to the landscape through the program has been described as a tool for improving Blackfeet-GNP relations and enhancing visitor experiences (Keyser, 2018).

183

Formal co-management agreements to facilitate collaboration between tribal species reintroduction and federal management agencies has occurred in the case of the Hoopa Valley

Tribe of California. The Tribe has worked with the Wildlife Conservation Society and the state and federal land management agencies to protect Fisher populations (Matthews et al., 2008).

Monitoring for Change and Impacts

Monitoring is important in the context of ecological conservation because it allows for practitioners to measure the impacts of their conservation actions (Danielsen et al., 2005).

Monitoring also allows for measuring the impacts that tourism has on the land, in an attempt to monitor the potential impacts that tourism could have on ecosystems (Whitford & Ruhanen,

2016). Some of the primary ecological impacts of tourism are destruction of habitats due to increased people on the landscape (Smith, 2016) and degradation of cultural and scenic values due to commercialization (Archer et al., 2005).

The need to be able to conserve resources and enforce regulations within a potential conservation area was identified by several respondents as important to the Blackfeet

Conservation Area project. This enforcement is needed to sustain the ecological resources and to support a positive experience for visitors. Concerns identified by respondents included trespass grazing and poaching by community members, as well as conflicts with wildlife both for community members and visitors. Visitor specific concerns included trammeling of landscapes, and illegal collection of plants.

Monitoring the impacts on wildlife populations and migration paths were identified as important components of operating a Blackfeet Conservation Area. Many respondents indicated that there would likely be ecological implications of a conservation area. For example, there may be impacts on wildlife corridors by building bison fencing. Specifically, grizzly bear populations

184

may be impacted by increased visitors, and fencing disrupting travel corridors. Some respondents suggested that increased habitat would reduce conflicts with large carnivores in working ranchers while others were concerned that increased habitat would increase populations and therefore increase conflicts.

One way to measure impacts of tourism and environmental management actions is through monitoring. Community-based monitoring by indigenous people of ecological impacts can be a tool for exercising sovereignty and jurisdiction over the protection of homelands

(Wilson et al., 2018). An important aspect of monitoring for impacts is setting indicators for acceptable change (Hughes, 2002). However, often these indicators are not set until it is too late for corrective action to be taken (Butler, 1993). In other Tribal Park case studies, enforcement has been approached in a variety of ways. At some parks, there are conservation wardens or law enforcement rangers to provide enforcement and oversight. In Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene, guardian programs provide a unique model of enforcement, ecological monitoring, community capacity building, and interpretation to visitors. Community-based monitoring programs also provide employment opportunities for community members (Brook et al., 2009; Şekercioğlu,

2012). Additionally, the Thaidene Nene guardian program has provided not only opportunities for employment of community members, but programs to transmit traditional ecological and western scientific knowledge to youth of the community (“Ni Hat’ni Dene”, 2019). None of the case studies used in this research have indicators set which reduces the effectiveness of any monitoring programs that are conducted. In the case of a Blackfeet Conservation Area the community has the opportunity to develop indicators in the planning process, then use a guardian-type monitoring program to measure impacts. Specifically monitoring for any potential impacts to cultural resources from increased visitors on the Blackfeet Reservation.

185

Chapter Six: Conclusions

The Tribal Park model is a tool being used increasingly by indigenous groups in the

United States and Canada for the management of unique and sacred natural areas, in some cases setting aside existing indigenous owned land, and in others regaining control of land management decisions in traditional territory (Carroll, 2014; Dasiqox, 2016; Frog Bay Tribal

National Park, 2019; Murray & King, 2012). Currently in North America there are several sites that have self-identified as Tribal Parks. These areas are attempting to return resource management to native hands and integrate traditional ecological knowledge into land management. Other central components of the Tribal Park concept include encouraging cultural uses of the land and ensuring Tribes or First Nations realization of economic benefits from the tourism to these areas (Carroll, 2014). There is a need for more in-depth study of the avenues and decisions that are involved in developing a Tribal Park particularly in the United States. The lack of study of Tribal Parks, and lack of clarity of the term could make it difficult for an indigenous group interested in pursuing this type of designation to know where to start, or what may work/ or not work.

The Blackfeet Nation is in a unique location to capture tourism from current visitors to

GNP, repatriate land lost to policies such as allotment, and to set a new precedent for conservation in the region by incorporating traditional uses and livelihoods into an indigenous conservation area. The utility of a Tribal Park on the Blackfeet Reservation has been proposed by a contingent of the Blackfeet Nation community; however, the limited research regarding the successes and challenges of the Tribal Park model makes it difficult to determine if this model would be appropriate to meet the Blackfeet Nation’s interest and needs.

186

This thesis contributed to the understanding of the Tribal Park model in the United States and Canada by providing insight into the development, goals, and outcomes of several existing

Tribal Parks. Further, the thesis explored the interests and concerns of Blackfeet community members regarding this model. Specifically, Phase One asked the question: What is the utility and challenges of the Tribal Park model? This phase investigated the use of the Tribal Park model for five case studies in the United States and Canada: (1) Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park;

(2) Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department; (3) Frog Bay Tribal Park (Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Wisconsin); (4) Dasiqox Tribal Park (Tsilhqot’in Nation, British

Columbia); and (5) Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve (Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation,

Northwest Territories). The methodologies used were semi-structured interviews with key informants, and in-depth document review. Phase Two applied information and themes from

Phase One to explore the question: How could the Tribal Park model be an opportunity for the

Blackfeet Nation? The methodologies used in this phase were field observations and semi- structured in-depth interviews.

This study reviewed five Tribal Park case studies for trends in (1) tourism and economic development; (2) cultural benefits; and, (3) ecological conservation. Interview respondents from the Blackfeet Nation highlighted interests and concerns that relate to experiences of existing

Tribal Park case studies.

Within tourism and economic development, the Tribes and First Nations of the case studies used the Tribal Park model to encourage economic development and sustainable livelihoods in their respective communities through tourism. Likewise, Blackfeet Nation interview respondents identified interest in using a conservation area to create jobs in the tourism industry for community members. One important theme of all the case studies was to implement

187

programs in place through the Tribal Park model that increase the capacity of the community and employ community members. The use of tourism by indigenous groups worldwide has been met with mixed ability to employ community members. Cultural tourism proponents highlight increased employment opportunities for rural communities (Butler & Hinch, 2007). Conversely, scholars have identified that all too often the cultural tourism industry in an indigenous community is run by an external company leading to benefits not being realized by community members (Simpson, 2008).

In all of the case studies, the Tribal Park is managed by the tribal government, or First

Nation leaders. Across the cases, a central priority has been ensuring community members are receiving the employment opportunities from the Tribal Park. In the Navajo Parks and Rec

Department case, Navajo tribal members are employed directly by the Tribal Parks in an operational capacity, as Natural Resource Law Enforcement Rangers, and in guiding. In the

UMUTP case, community members are employed as operational staff as well as tour guides into the park. Frog Bay is managed by the Treaty Natural Resources Department which hires Red

Cliff members. In Thaidene Nene, special care was given in the development of the co- management agreement, the trust fund to ensure the LKDFN community is receiving employment opportunities. Dasiqox is still in the development stages; however, creating sustainable employment opportunities through guardian monitor programs and eco-tourism business endeavors is central to Dasiqox goals. The Tribal Park model varies from other indigenous tourism endeavors because the tourism draw (the Tribal Park) is developed and operated by the community, rather than an external agency or business.

Many Blackfeet interview respondents described needs for employment in the community. Highlighting employment opportunities of increased tourism on the Blackfeet

188

Reservation was described as a way to gather community support for Blackfeet Conservation

Area development. The development of a conservation area was perceived as beneficial to the community because of the potential for economic development through capturing tourism money. The types of possible employment opportunities identified by interview respondents included guiding, crafts sales and other entrepreneurial endeavors, and game wardens. These identified employment avenues align with the employment opportunities identified in the Tribal

Park case studies. However, some respondents were concerned about cooption of tourism by outside companies. The use of external concessionaires by the GNP was identified as a model to avoid, because these companies do not give back to the community.

Under the theme of cultural benefits of a Tribal Park, exercising sovereignty over land to resurge from a history of dispossession was important to all Tribal Park case studies. The emergence of Tribal Parks have been suggested by researchers as playing a role in systemic reclamations of indigenous sovereignty and territory using environmental stewardship as a tool

(Carroll, 2014). The development of Frog Bay has facilitated in repatriation of tribal land lost during the allotment era. In the Navajo Nation Parks and Rec and UMUTP examples, the Tribal

Park development was in response to losses of reservation land to the NPS (for Canyon de

Chelly and Mesa Verde). The Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene examples were in response to resource extraction pressures in traditional territory and First Nation intentions to exercise sovereignty over the use of traditional land.

Blackfeet interviewees also discussed historical losses. Some respondents described potential interest in a Blackfeet Conservation Area while others described a connection between the terms “conservation area” and “park” with dispossession of traditional territory. The relationship with neighboring GNP and the historical losses experienced have shaped

189

associations of parks with loss of access. Respondents explained that the tribe has already had a park taken from a limited land base, so there is hesitation for a second park which could restrict activities such as grazing, homesites, and wood cutting. Some interviewees described that a conservation area would allow the Blackfeet to display their culture and the relationship between culture and mother nature. Sharing the ways that Tribal Park case studies have created a new conservation model that facilitates the exercise of tribal sovereignty over traditional territory could assist in reframing connotations of conservation in Blackfeet Country.

In the realm of ecological conservation, one of the main themes that emerged was providing landscape connectivity for watersheds, biodiversity and key species. These conservation themes overlap with Blackfeet Nation interests. One benefit to ecological conservation of indigenous protected areas is providing landscape connectivity that is important for migration of wildlife, and for genetic exchange (Bassi et al., 2008). In the Canadian case studies, the Tribal Parks protect large expanses of unique ecosystems significant to biodiversity protection from resource extraction pressures (Sandlos, 2014). In the United States, tribally managed lands in general represent a large portion of the countries undeveloped landscapes and plays a large role in biodiversity protection (Schmidt & Peterson, 2009). Specifically, the United

States Tribal Park case studies represent examples of this protection of important ecological and cultural landscapes. Though the Tribal Park cases all protected ecologically and culturally significant landscapes, the level to which large landscape connectivity was part of the decision- making process varied. For example, in Dasiqox and Thaidene Nene there were studies commissioned that analyzed the effectiveness of proposed boundaries to incorporate key habitat.

The location of the Blackfeet Nation is significant ecologically. The potential of a conservation area to protect habitat for species like grizzly bears and prairie grasslands was

190

identified by interviewees as a motivating factor. The Blackfeet Nation landscape is currently fragmented by fences which was identified as disruptive to wildlife migration. A conservation area was thought to potentially decrease predation on cattle by providing habitat for grizzly bears away from working ranches. Some interview respondents identified the potential for integration of returning buffalo to the landscape with a conservation area. The relationship between an indigenous conservation area and habitat for culturally significant ungulates such as buffalo, is similar to the intentions of the Thaidene Nene case study to provide habitat for caribou (Ellis,

2005).

After reviewing the components of five Tribal Park case studies and exploring the possibility of this model for the Blackfeet Nation, several conclusions were identified. First, the

Tribal Park tool is not a one-size-fits-all model. The main components of each Tribal Park varied based on the very specific needs and interests of the community developing the site. Because all cases varied greatly, there was also varying degrees for how tourism and economic development, cultural benefits, and ecological conservation were integrated into the Tribal Park model.

Another main conclusion was that the Canadian and the United States Tribal Parks have significant differences in level of planning, motivations for development, size, and extent of community engagement. The examples in Canada generally had mission statements that incorporated all three components: tourism and economic development, cultural benefits, and ecological conservation. They also had more plans in place for tourism management, community engagement, and for intended protections from resource extraction. This should be considered by the Blackfeet Nation because of their location as part of the transboundary Blackfoot

Confederacy. If a Blackfeet Conservation Area were to be developed, there is potential for involvement of the Blackfoot Confederacy. The Blackfeet need to decide if the model being

191

pursued primarily by Canadian cases is more of interest. Additionally, the Iinnii initiative has potential to transcend national boundaries. With Waterton-Lakes National Park and the

Blackfoot Confederacy being part of the Iinnii efforts, there is potential for a transboundary

Iinnii conservation area.

Recommendations for the Blackfeet Nation

The research findings inform several recommendations for the Blackfeet Nation if considering development of a conservation area or Tribal Park. These recommendations could also be of use for other indigenous groups interested in the development of a Tribal Park.

Tourism and Economic Development:

1) Plan for Infrastructure: It is important to consider the initial infrastructure improvements and

advertising needed while in the planning phase. The Blackfeet Conservation Area Survey

from ITRR (Appendix B) cautions that visitation is dependent upon infrastructure

improvements and sufficient advertising of the conservation area so that necessary

information reaches potential visitors during their trip planning (Sage et al., 2019).

2) Use Caution Estimating Tourism: Comparing potential visitation to the number of visitors in

neighboring GNP should be done with caution. At UMUTP, visitation to the Tribal Park is

substantially less than Mesa Verde National Park, the revenue that the tribe collects from the

UMUTP has been described as not sufficient to fund operations of the park (Burnham, 2000).

3) Diverse Funding: Financial contributions from other avenues beyond visitation and tribal

government should be considered to ensure the conservation area is able to fund long-term

operations. The development of a trust fund similar to the Thaidene Nene fund should be

considered, utilize partnerships to create a fund separate from tribal government to facilitate

management needs.

192

Cultural Benefits:

1) Monitoring for Impacts: There is a critical need for monitoring of impacts and enforcement

of regulations if a Blackfeet Conservation Area were to be created. Blackfeet respondents

expressed concerns regarding impacts from tourism on the land and the community. One

model which might be helpful for meeting these needs would be an indigenous guardian

program like those used in Thaidene Nene and Dasiqox. An indigenous monitoring program

could provide the opportunity to conduct important visitor-use and ecological monitoring.

2) Collaboration with other Blackfeet Initiatives: Collaborate across other initiatives occurring

in Blackfeet Country to encourage holistic community benefits through programs for

community members as well as employment opportunities in the conservation and tourism

fields (See Table 12 in Chapter 5). Some potential collaboration examples include programs

and internships for the youth through the high school and Blackfeet Community College,

collaborating on a visitor center and tourism enterprises with the Iinnii Initiative, and

partnering on agricultural and conservation land improvements through the Water Compact.

3) Significance in Name: The term “National Park” or even “Park” holds negative connotations

for some community members. Careful consideration should be given to naming that reflects

community interests and values, rather than focusing on perceived tourism potential of a

particular name.

4) Extensive Community Consultation: More in-depth study of the interests and needs of the

Blackfeet People in a conservation area should be conducted. This could take place through

interviews such as the Community Vision and Management Goals document created by

Dasiqox.

193

Ecological Conservation:

1) Set Monitoring Indicators: One important step of effective monitoring would be identifying

indicators during the planning process to measure changes. The setting of these indicators

should be conducted with the heads of departments that could be impacted by a conservation

area. These departments include wildlife, water, agriculture, tourism, culture, and climate

change.

2) Communication: Interview respondents raised questions about several components of a

Blackfeet Conservation Area proposal. For example, there were many questions regarding

the introduction of Iinnii into a conservation area. Other questions included, what activities

would be allowed, and where a conservation area would be located. As these components are

planned for, communicating with community members will be essential. Regular and clear

communication throughout the process is important to ensure buy-in and build trust.

3) Prioritize Small Parcels Rather Than Large Designation: Due to allotment and the

fragmented land ownership status of the Blackfeet Reservation, gathering land from private

ownership would be one of the largest challenges of a potential Blackfeet Conservation Area.

The development of several, perhaps smaller, conservation areas across Blackfeet Country

that meet different community, tourism, and ecological needs may be the most achievable

model. The approach used by the Red Cliff Band when developing Frog Bay and the

FCCMA, creating the conservation area parcel by parcel, should be considered.

This tool varies from other conservation approaches because of its ability to be shaped by the

Tribe or First Nation developing the Tribal Park. As discussed earlier, the Tribal Park model is not a one-size fits all tool. Though each Tribal Park is unique, there are several central themes that have emerged that differentiates this model from conventional conservation models. First, all

194

of the case studies ensured that providing employment opportunities for community members is a central priority of the Tribal Park. Second, every case study was exercising sovereignty over traditional territory and incorporating community values into conservation efforts. Third, large landscape connectivity was encouraged in all the cases.

While there were many benefits associated with the Tribal Park case studies, some challenges were also identified that will need to be considered by indigenous groups interested in the Tribal Park model. The challenges include separating the project from politics of tribal government. Another challenge is maintaining community control while also procuring financial capital needed for improvements and development.

Based on the five case studies reviewed for this study, the Tribal Park model appears to share many similarities with the ICCA model. For example, ICCAs and Tribal Parks incorporate community livelihoods and cultural uses of the land with goals of ecological conservation. The primary distinction is not between ICCAs and Tribal Park, but between these two models and conventional protected areas. For example, the governance of many existing Tribal Parks and

ICCAs has been more bottom-up community driven than federal, state, and provincial protected areas.

Limitations and Future Research

Research inheritably has limitations. The Blackfeet Nation similar to other indigenous communities has faced a steady stream of researchers coming through. Often in the past, research has been “on” the community, not “with” the community. Therefore, community members were sometimes hesitant to talk with an outside researcher. The time needed to build relationships and share the researcher’s worldview and research project with potential interviewees was essential, but limited ability to collect as many interviews as would have been preferred. Another

195

limitation was that the researcher was not able to visit the case study locations. In an ideal research study, a document review would be conducted, followed by time spent in the case study locations learning about the dynamics and the region.

Additional research on the topic of Tribal Parks in the United States should be conducted.

There are several academic studies in recent years that work with Tribal Parks in Canada.

However, limited research has been conducted in the United States on the Tribal Park topic.

There has been one peer-reviewed article in the last 15 years on these areas in the United States and this article did not involve engaged time in the communities. More in depth study of the economic, conservation, and cultural components of United States Tribal Parks and how they relate to other indigenous land conservation tools being used is needed. Another avenue of future research could be a comparison of motivators for Tribal Park development between United

States and Canada.

196

Works Cited

Akens, J. (1987). Ute Mountain Tribal Park: The Other Mesa Verde. Moab, UT: Four Corners

Publications.

Alderman, D. H. (2016). Place, naming and the interpretation of cultural landscapes. Heritage

and Identity, edited by Brian Graham and Peter Howard, 195-213.

Allen, K. (2015, December 3). 6th annual MV Balloon Event set to begin Dec 11.

Navajo Times. Retrieved from https://navajotimes.com/ae/community/6th-annual-mv-

balloon-event-set-to-begin-dec-11/

Amskapi Piikani Food Sovereignty Strategic Plan. (2019). Blackfeet Nation. Retrieved from

https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-

24466255/documents/5c9e645abffb3pCokiTJ/FSSP%20Final%20032819%20239.pdf

Anaya, J. (2012). In the United States: A Pressing Need to Develop Tribal Economies—

Regaining Sovereignty Over Our Land. A Paper for the Conference and Consultation

with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

National Congress of American Indians. Retrieved from

http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai_publications/in-the-united-states-a-pressing-need-to-

develop-tribal-economies-regaining-sovereignty-over-our-land

Anderson, M. (2014, November 03). Fresh off Title Victory, Tsilhqot'in Unveil Tribal Park. The

Tyee. Retrieved from https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/11/03/Tsilhqotin-Tribal-Park/

“A New Shoreline Tribal Park”. (2012, January 16). Lake Superior Magazine. Retrieved from

https://www.lakesuperior.com/the-lake/lake-superior/341newshoreline/

197

Archer, B., Cooper, C., & Ruhanen, L. (2005). The positive and negative impacts of tourism.

Global tourism, 3, 79-102.

Artelle, K. A., Zurba, M., Bhattacharrya, J., Chan, D. E., Brown, K., Housty, J., & Moola, F.

(2019). Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: A nascent mechanism for just

and effective conservation. Biological Conservation, 240, 108284.

A Strategic Agreement between the Navajo Nation, National Park Service, and Bureau of Indian

Affairs for the Cooperative Stewardship of Canyon de Chelly. (2018). Retrieved from

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/0bf367cc7bf787cb9b02b21c8/files/6758d641-e844-4586-

ac6a-6c8ad182b952/Strategic_Agreement_PDF.pdf

Ashby, C. S. (1985). Blackfeet Agreement of 1895 and Glacier National Park| A case history.

Auttelet, K. L. (2015). Yellowstone Bison: Conserving an American Icon in Modern Society.

Yellowstone Association.

Babbie, E. (2012). The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Publishing.

Backcountry Hiking and Camping Permits. (2019). Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation.

Retrieved from https://navajonationparks.org/permits/backcountry-hiking- camping/

Backgrounder. (2013). Thaidene Nene Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation. Retrieved from

http://www.landoftheancestors.ca/images/Thaidene_Nene_Backgrounder_Dec_2012_FI

NAL.pdf

Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. A. (2004). Exploratory research of tourist motivations and planning.

Tourism management, 25(3), 387-396.

Barnes, J., Burgess, J., & Pearce, D. (1992). Wildlife tourism. Economics for the wilds: Wildlife,

wildlands, diversity and development, 136-151.

198

Bayfield County. (2015). Bayfield County Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2015-2019.

Retrieved from

https://www.bayfieldcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/2766/Rec_Plan_2015_2019

Bayfield County. (2019). Visitor and Recreation Guide. Retrieved from

https://www.bayfieldcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/2741/2019-Visitor-Guide-?bidId

Beeton, S. (2006). Sustainable tourism in practice: Trails and tourism. Critical management

issues of multi-use trails. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 3(1), 47-64.

Bennett, N. (2019 July 3). First Nation blockades workers at British Columbia gold-copper

project. Business in Vancouver. Retrieved from https://www.mining.com/first-nation-

blockade-workers-at-british-columbia-copper-gold-project/

Bennett, N. J., & Dearden, P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation: Community

perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in

Thailand. Marine policy, 44, 107-116.

Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community‐based conservation. Conservation biology, 18(3), 621-

630.

Berkes, F. (2009). Community conserved areas: policy issues in historic and contemporary

context. Conservation letters, 2(1), 20-25.

Blackfeet Agricultural Resource Management Plan. (2019). Blackfeet Nation. Retrieved from

https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-

24466255/documents/5d2502fedf6dcwp9xvBM/ARMP%20Final%205.13.19.pdf

Blackfeet Climate Change Adaptation Plan. (2018). Blackfeet Nation. Retrieved from

https://bcapwebsite.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/bcap_final_4-11.pdf

199

Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community based tourism. Community development

journal, 40(1), 39-49.

Blake, C. (2019, August 20). Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve Becomes N.W.T.’s Newest

Protected Area. CBC News. Retrieved from

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/thaidene-nene-finalized-1.5253685

Bratek, O., Devlin, P., & Simmons, D. (2006). Conservation, wildlife and indigenous tourism:

longhouse communities in and adjacent to Batang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia.

In Tourism and indigenous peoples (pp. 141-157).

Braun, S. F. (2008). Buffalo Inc.: American Indians and economic development. Norman:

University of Oklahoma Press.

Brook, R. K., Kutz, S. J., Veitch, A. M., Popko, R. A., Elkin, B. T., & Guthrie, G. (2009).

Fostering community-based wildlife health monitoring and research in the Canadian

North. EcoHealth, 6(2), 266-278.

Brugge, D. M., & Wilson, R. (1976). Administrative History: Canyon de Chelly National

Monument, Arizona. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/cach/learn/historyculture/upload/CACH_adhi.pdf

Brulliard, N. (2019). Naming Matters. National Park Conservation Association. doi:

https://www.npca.org/articles/2189-naming-matters

Burnham, P. (2000). Indian Country, God's Country Native Americans and the National Parks.

Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Busch, J. C. (2008). People and places: a human history of the Apostle Islands. Midwest

Regional Office, National Park Service. Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/apis/learn/historyculture/upload/Historic%20Resource%20Study

200

Butler, R., Hall, C. M. & Jenkins, J. M. (eds). 1998. Tourism and recreation in rural areas.

Wiley, New York.

Butler, R., & Hinch, T. (2007). Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications.

Routledge.

Butler, R. W. (1993). Tourism–an evolutionary perspective. Tourism and sustainable

development: Monitoring, planning, managing, 37.

Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological implications.

Journal of environmental management, 75(1), 65-76.

Carmichael, D. (2015 December 14). Public consultation on Thaidene Nene National Park. The

Northern Journal. Retrieved from https://norj.ca/2015/12/public-consultation-on-

thaidene-nene-national-park/

Carr, A. (2007). Maori nature tourism businesses: Connecting with the land. Tourism and

indigenous peoples: Issues and implications, 113-127.

Carr, A., Ruhanen, L., & Whitford, M. (2016). Indigenous peoples and tourism: The challenges

and opportunities for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8-9), 1067-

1079

Carroll, C. (2014). Native enclosures: Tribal national parks and the progressive politics of

environmental stewardship in Indian Country. Geoforum, 53, 31-40.

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.02.003

Casper, K. (n.d.). Hiking Frog Bay National Park in Red Cliff WI. Wisconsin Explorer.

Retrieved from https://wisconsin-explorer.blogspot.com/2015/10/hiking-frog-bay-

national-park-in-red.html

201

Clark, B. (2012, August 24). Exploring Frog Bay, Wisconsin’s newest park. Milwaukee

Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from:

http://archive.jsonline.com/features/travel/exploring-frog-bay-wisconsins-newest-park-

t26jdot-167325325.html

Charlwood, J. (2019). ‘What our ancestors meant:’ Canada, First Nations create new park

reserve. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-what-our-ancestors-meant-canada-first-

nations-create-new-park-2

Chhabra, D., Healy, R., & Sills, E. (2003). Staged authenticity and heritage tourism. Annals of

tourism research, 30(3), 702-719.

“Chronology”. (2017). Proposed Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve. Parks Canada. Retrieved

from https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/cnpn-cnnp/thaidene-nene/chrono

Clark, J. D., Huber, D., & Servheen, C. (2002). Bear reintroductions: lessons and challenges.

Ursus, 335-345.

Colchester, M. (1996). Beyond" participation": indigenous peoples, biological diversity

conservation and protected area management. UNASYLVA-FAO-, 33-39.

Community Vision and Management Goals. (2018). Dasiqox Tribal Park. Retrieved from

https://dasiqox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/DTP_VisionSummary-April-2018-

web.pdf

Coppedge, B. R., & Shaw, J. H. (1998). Bison grazing patterns on seasonally burned tallgrass

prairie. Rangeland Ecology & Management/Journal of Range Management Archives,

51(3), 258-264.

202

Cowan, E. (2013, August 22). Tribal park offers more exclusive encounter with history. The

Journal. Retrieved from https://the-journal.com/articles/15210

Craig, D., Borrie, W., & Yung, L. (2012). "Blackfeet Belong to the Mountains": Hope, Loss, and

Blackfeet Claims to Glacier National Park, Montana. Conservation and Society,10(3),

232.

Cronon, W. (1996). The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature.

Environmental history, 1(1), 7-28.

Critical Path to Establishment. (2018). Presentation to the Standing Committee of Economic

Development and Environment. Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation.

Cuccia, T., & Rizzo, I. (2011). Tourism seasonality in cultural destinations: Empirical evidence

from Sicily. Tourism Management, 32(3), 589-595.

“Culture and History”. (2011). Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Retrieved from:

http://www.utemountainutetribe.com/

Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., & Balmford, A. (2005). Monitoring matters: examining the

potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(11), 2507-2542.

De Beer, F., & Marais, M. (2005). Rural communities, the natural environment and

development–some challenges, some successes. Community Development Journal, 40(1),

50-61.

DeFries, R., Hansen, A., Turner, B. L., Reid, R., & Liu, J. (2007). Land use change around

protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological

Applications, 17(4), 1031-1038.

Deng, J., Arbogast, D., & Selin, S. (2011). Community-based tourism planning: An application

of the APPA approach to Ansted, West Virginia. Tourism analysis, 16(5), 601-615.

203

Dinwoodie, D. W. (2002). Reserve memories: The power of the past in a Chilcotin community. U

of Nebraska Press.

“Discover Navajo”. (2019). Navajo Nation Tourism Department. Retrieved from

https://www.discovernavajo.com/parks.aspx#Four%20Corners%20Navajo%20Tribal%20

Park

Diver, S. (2016). Co-management as a catalyst: pathways to post-colonial forestry in the

Klamath Basin, California. Human Ecology, 44(5), 533-546.

Donoghue, E. M., Thompson, S. A., & Bliss, J. C. (2010). Tribal-federal collaboration in

resource management. Journal of Ecological Anthropology, 14(1), 22-38.

Du Cros, H. and McKercher, B. (2015) Cultural Tourism, London: Routledge.

Duffus, D. A., & Dearden, P. (1990). Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: A

conceptual framework. Biological conservation, 53(3), 213-231.

Dutton, B. P. (1975). The Ranchería, Ute, and Southern Paiute peoples: Indians of the

American Southwest. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ellis, S. C. (2005). Meaningful consideration? A review of traditional knowledge in

environmental decision making. Arctic, 66-77.

Engen, S., Fauchald, P., & Hausner, V. (2019). Stakeholders’ perceptions of protected area

management following a nationwide community-based conservation reform. PloS one,

14(4), e0215437.

Enzoe, D. (May 6, 2013). “We want to protect Canada’s north and create sustainable jobs”. The

Hill Times.

“Events”. (2019). Navajo Yes. Retrieved from http://navajoyes.org/events/

204

Ewers, J. C. (1983). The Blackfoot: Raiders on the Northwestern Plains (1st Paperback).

Norman, Oklahoma, USA: University of Oklahoma Press.

“Exploring Frog Bay Tribal National Park”. (2015 August 19). Madeline Island Wilderness

Preserve. Retrieved from https://www.miwp.org/latest-news/2015/8/19/exploring-frog-

bay-tribal-national-park

“Explore with Local Guides”. (2019). Thaidene Nene Land of the Ancestors. Retrieved from

http://landoftheancestors.ca/visit/tour-operators.html

Fact Sheet. (2018). Dasiqox Tribal Park. Retrieved from https://dasiqox.org/wp-

content/uploads/2018/04/DTP-Fact-Sheet.pdf

“First Nations Negotiator Honors Ancestors by Protecting Boreal Forest”. (2016, May 16).

International Boreal Conservation Campaign. The PEW Charitable Trusts. Retrieved

from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2016/05/31/first-

nations-delegate-honors-ancestors-by-protecting-the-boreal-forest

Fonseca, F. (2008, September 12). Navajo seek full control of Canyon de Chelly national

monument. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from

https://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/navajo-seek-full-control-of-canyon-de-chelly-

national-monument/

“Four Corners Monument”. (2019). Utah Travel Industry. Retrieved from https://utah.com/four-

corners

Friesema, P. (1996). Mesa Verde and the Utes: Boundary Issues of a World Heritage Site (No.

96-33). Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.

205

“Frequently Asked Questions”. (2015). Thaidene Nene Proposed National Park Reserve. Parks

Canada. Retrieved from https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/cnpn-cnnp/thaidene-

nene/apprendre-learn

“Frog Bay Tribal National Park”. (2019). Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Retrieved

from http://redcliff-nsn.gov/divisions/TNRD/FBTNP.htm

“Funding”. (2019). Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Retrieved from

https://www.glri.us/funding

Geisler, C. (2014). Disowned by the Ownership Society: How Native Americans Lost Their

Land. Rural Sociology, 79(1), 56-78.

Ghimire, K. B., & Pimbert, M. P. (1997). Social change and conservation: an overview of issues

and concepts. Social change and conservation: Environmental politics and impacts of

national parks and protected areas, 1-45.

Gilchrist, E. (2016, March 29). ‘It’s No Longer About Saying No’: How B.C.’s First Nations Are

Taking Charge with Tribal Parks. The Narwhal. Retrieved April 12, 2019, from

https://thenarwhal.ca/it-s-no-longer-about-saying-no-how-b-c-s-first-nations-are-taking-

charge-through-tribal-parks/

Girard, L. F., & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.). (2009). Cultural tourism and sustainable local development.

Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Gómez-Barris, M. (2012). Andean translations: New age tourism and cultural exchange in the

Sacred Valley, Peru. Latin American Perspectives, 39(6), 68-78.

“Government Structure”. (2019). Navajo Nation. Retrieved from

https://www.navajochapters.org/About.aspx

206

Grant, A. D., (2017). (revised version). Elouise Cobell Fellowship, Final Report. University of

Montana College of Humanities and Sciences, Missoula, MT. Retrieved from

http://www.montana.edu/nativeland/otkwaipiiksaakii.html

“Grants Awarded”. (2019). Ute Mountain Ute. History Colorado. Retrieved from

https://www.historycolorado.org/location/ute-mountain-ute

Grants Database-Dasiqox. (2019). The Wilburforce Foundation. Retrieved on March 10, 2019

from http://www.wilburforce.org/grants/grants-database/

Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council. (2016). Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy

Report. Retrieved from http://www.glitc.org/forms/EDA/ceds-document-2016.pdf

Gunn, A., Poole, K., and Wierzchowski, J. (2011). Migratory Tundra Caribou seasonal and

annual distribution relative to Thaidene Nene, a national park reserve proposal in the

East Arm of Great Slave Lake and Artillery Lake area, Northwest Territories. Parks

Canada. Ft Smith, Northwest Territories. Retrieved from

http://www.parkscanadahistory.com/publications/thaidene-nene/caribou-summary-e-

2011.pdf

Hall, D., (2001). Guidelines for Integrated Resource Management Planning in Indian Country.

Bureau of Indian Affairs. Office of Trust Responsibilities. Retrieved from

https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/assets/bia/ots/dfwfm/pdf/Guidelines_for_IRMP_i

n_Indian_Country.pdf

Halne’e. (2019, August 18). Navajo Suspends backcountry permits in east rim. Save the

Confluence. Retrieved from https://savetheconfluence.com/news/navajo-suspends-back-

country-permits-in-east-rim/

Harris, R., Williams, P., & Griffin, T. (Eds.). (2012). Sustainable Tourism. Routledge.

207

Haskew, D. C. (1999). Federal Consultation with Indian Tribes: The Foundation of Enlightened

Policy Decisions, or Another Badge of Shame?. American Indian Law Review, 24(1), 21-

74.

Hayes, T. M. (2006). Parks, people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the

effectiveness of protected areas. World Development, 34(12), 2064-2075.

“Heritage and Culture”. (2004). Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Retrieved from

http://redcliff-nsn.gov/Heritage&Culture/heritage.htm

Hesse-Biber, S.N. and Leavy, P. (2011). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Sage

Publications.

Hill, R. (2006). The effectiveness of agreements and protocols to bridge between Indigenous and

non-Indigenous toolboxes for protected area management: A case study from the Wet

Tropics of Queensland. Society and Natural Resources, 19(7), 577-590.

Hill, R., Pert, P. I., Davies, J., Walsh, F. J., & Falco-Mammone, F. (2013). Indigenous land

management in Australia: extent, scope, diversity, barriers and success factors. Cairns:

CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences.

Holmes, A. P., Grimwood, B. S., King, L. J., & Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation. (2016). Creating

an Indigenized visitor code of conduct: The development of Denesoline self-

determination for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8-9), 1177-

1193.

Horowitz, L. S. (1998). Integrating indigenous resource management with wildlife conservation:

a case study of Batang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Human Ecology, 26(3),

371-403.

208

How Nexwagwez?an Came to Be. (2018). Dasiqox Tribal Park. Retrieved from

https://dasiqox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Backgrounder-How-

Nexwagwez%EF%80%A5an-Came-to-Be.pdf

Hughes, G. (2002). Environmental indicators. Annals of tourism research, 29(2), 457-477.

Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of tourism research,

24(4), 850-867.

ICCA Consortium – Indigenous and Conserved Communities Area Consortium. (2017).

Retrieved from https://www.iccaconsortium.org/

Indigenous Guardians Program. (2019). Indigenous Leadership Initiative. Retrieved from

https://www.ilinationhood.ca/our-work/guardians/

Intertribal Buffalo Council. (2019). Retrieved from https://itbcbuffalonation.org/

Iverson, P. (1994). When Indians became cowboys: native peoples and cattle ranching in the

American West. University of Oklahoma Press.

IWGEJ. (2002). Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice Revitalization Projects.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/04/24/02-9913/federal-interagency-

working-group-on-environmental-justice-environmental-justice-revitalization#h-19

Jamal, T., & Dredge, D. (2014). Tourism and community development issues. R. Sharpley and

D. Telfer, Tourism and Development. Concepts and Issues, Second Edition. London:

Channel View, 178-204.

Jamal, T., & Hill, S. (2004). Developing a framework for indicators of authenticity: The place

and space of cultural and heritage tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism

Research, 9(4), 353-372.

209

Jampolsky, J. A. (2014). Integrated Resource Management Planning with the Ute Mountain Ute

Tribe: Property, Place, and Governable Space. Retrieved from

https://scholar.colorado.edu/envs_gradetds/15/

Jampolsky, J. A. (2015). Making Resources, Making Management. The U. of Pac. L. Rev., 47,

243. Retrieved from

https://www.mcgeorge.edu/Documents/Publications/jampolskyTUOPLR472.pdf

Jang, T. (2017, February 22). Why the only First Nation in Canada to win an Aboriginal title

claim is still fighting to protect their land. The Discourse. Retrieved from

https://www.thediscourse.ca/reconciliation/first-nation-canada-win-right-land-still-

struggling-protect

Johnston, A. M. (2014). Is the sacred for sale: Tourism and Indigenous peoples. Routledge.

Kappler, C. (1904). Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties Vol. II. Washington. DC: Government

Printing Office.

Keller, R. H., & Turek, M. F. (1998). American Indians & national parks. Tucson: University of

Arizona Press.

Keyser, E. (2018). Collaborative Conservation: Reconnecting People, Land, and Bison through

the Iinnii Initiative (Master’s Thesis).

King, M. A. (2007). Co-Management or Contracting-Agreements between Native American

Tribes and the US National Park Service Pursuant to the 1994 Tribal Self-Governance

Act. Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., 31, 475.

Klug, B., Scharfetter-Lehrl, G., & Scharfetter, E. (2002). Effects of trampling on vegetation

above the timberline in the eastern Alps, Austria. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research,

377-388.

210

Kothari, A., Camill, P., & Brown, J. (2013). Conservation as if people also mattered: policy and

practice of community-based conservation. Conservation and society, 11(1), 1.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage

publications.

Kutzner, D., & Wright, P. A. (2010). An investigation into key market segments for Aboriginal

tourism in northern British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(2), 97-

110.

Lake Powell Navajo Tribal Park. (2019). Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department.

Retrieved from https://navajonationparks.org/tribal-parks/lake-powell/

Langton, M., Rhea, Z. M., & Palmer, L. (2005). Community-oriented protected areas for

Indigenous peoples and local communities. Journal of Political Ecology, 12(1), 23-50.

Lavender, D. (1979, April 29). The Dwellings in Ute Tribal Park. The New York Times.

Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/29/archives/the-dwellings-in-ute-

tribal-park-utes-tribal-park-affords-access-to.html

Lavoie, J. (2018, August 28). B.C. court okays Taseko’s exploratory drilling in Indigenous park

for rejected mine project. The Narwhal. Retrieved from https://thenarwhal.ca/b-c-court-

okays-tasekos-exploratory-drilling-in-indigenous-park-for-rejected-mine-project/

Lawson, M. M., Rasker, R., & Gude, P. H. (2014). The importance of non-labor income: an

analysis of socioeconomic performance in western counties by type of non-labor income.

Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 44(1100-2016-90124), 175-190.

Letter of Intent. Tsilhqot’in Nation-Province of British Columbia. September 24, 2015.

Li, W. (2006). Community decision making participation in development. Annals of tourism

research, 33(1), 132-143.

211

Locke, K. (2016, November 29). Navajo Tribal Park overlooking Little Colorado River gets new

interpretive site. Navajo-Hopi Observer. Retrieved from

https://www.nhonews.com/news/2016/nov/29/navajo-tribal-park-overlooking-little-

colorado-riv/

Locke, K. (2017, March 7). Antelope Canyon gets new Interpretive Site (photo gallery). Navajo-

Hopi Observer. Retrieved from https://www.nhonews.com/news/2017/mar/07/antelope-

canyon-gets-new-interpretive-site-photo-g/

Loew, P. (2013). Indian nations of Wisconsin: histories of endurance and renewal. Wisconsin

Historical Society.

Lulka, D. (2006). Bison and the food distribution program on Indian reservations. Great Plains

Research, 73-84.

“Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation to present Thaidene Nene at World Parks Congress in Sydney,

Australia”. (2014 November 13). Thaidene Nene Land of the Ancestors. Retrieved from

http://landoftheancestors.ca/newsroom/lutsel-ke-dene-first-nation-to-present-thaidene-

nene-at-world-parks-congress-in-sydney-australia.html

MacDonald, R., & Jolliffe, L. (2003). Cultural rural tourism: Evidence from Canada. Annals of

tourism research, 30(2), 307-322.

Matthews, S. M., Higley, M. J., Hilty, J. A., Wang, K., (2008). Culturally-based Wildlife

Conservation on Native American Lands: A Challenge of Scale and Governance. The

Wildlife Conservation Society. 36. 83-96.

McCrory, W., Smith, L., William, A., Cross, B., & Craighead, L. (2014). Inventory of Wildlife,

Ecological, and Landscape connectivity values, Tsilhqot’in First Nations Cultural/

212

Heritage values, & resource conflicts in the Dasiqox-Taseko Watershed, BC

Chilcotin (Rep.).

Menzies, C. R., & Butler, C. F. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous

tourism. In Tourism and Indigenous Peoples (pp. 33-45). Routledge.

Middleton, B. R. (2011). Trust in the land : New directions in tribal conservation. Retrieved

from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.weblib.lib.umt.edu:2443

Milder, J. C., Buck, L. E., DeClerck, F., & Scherr, S. J. (2012). Landscape approaches to

achieving food production, natural resource conservation, and the millennium

development goals. In Integrating ecology and poverty reduction (pp. 77-108). Springer,

New York, NY.

Mimiaga, J. (2018, July 23). Study maps Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park with drones. The

Journal. Retrieved from https://the-journal.com/articles/103524

Mitchell, N., Slaiby, B., & Benedict, M. (2002). Local community leadership: Building

partnerships for conservation in North America. Parks, 12(2), 55-66.

Mountaintop Associates Inc. (2004). Groundwater Protection Plan. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.

Retrieved from http://www.utemountainuteenvironmental.org/umep/assets/File/

Water/GWPP.pdf

Murray, G., & King, L. (2012). First Nations Values in Protected Area Governance: Tla-o-qui-

aht Tribal Parks and Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Human Ecology, 40(3), 385-

395.

Nadasdy, P. (2003). Hunters and bureaucrats: power, knowledge, and aboriginal-state relations

in the southwest Yukon. UBC Press

213

National Park Service: Technical Preservation Services. (2019). Planning Successful

Rehabilitation Projects, New Construction. Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/new-

construction.htm

Navajo Forestlands Integrated Resource Management Plan. (2017). Navajo Nation. Retrieved

from https://navajoirmp.wixsite.com/irmp

“Navajo Hotel Owners Open a Retreat in Monument Valley”. (2015, January 12). Indian

Country Today. Retrieved from https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/navajo-

hotel-owners-open-a-retreat-in-monument-valley-N2aHMZ0x8EiyBCDjVmBVBA/

Negi, C. S., & Nautiya, S. (2003). Indigenous peoples, biological diversity and protected area

management—policy framework towards resolving conflicts. The International Journal

of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 10(2), 169-179.

Nemiah Declaration. (1989). Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government. Retrieved March 6, 2019,

from https://www.xenigwetin.net/nemiah-declaration

Nie, M. (2008). The Use of co-management and protected land-use designations to protect tribal

cultural resources and reserved treaty rights on Federal Lands. Natural Resources

Journal, 585-647.

“Ni Hat’ni Dene”. (2019). Thaidene Nene Land of the Ancestors. Retrieved from

http://landoftheancestors.ca/place/ni-hatni-dene.html

Oetelaar, G. A. (2014). Worldviews and human–animal relations: Critical perspectives on bison–

human relations among the Euro-Canadians and Blackfoot. Critique of Anthropology,

34(1), 94-112.

214

O’Gorman, K., & Thompson, K. (2007). Tourism and culture in Mongolia: the case of

Ulaanbaatar Naadam. Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications, 161-175.

Okazaki, E. (2008). A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use. Journal of

sustainable tourism, 16(5), 511-529.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in

social–ecological systems. Environmental management, 34(1), 75-90

“Origins and History”. (2018). Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Retrieved from

http://redcliff-nsn.gov/divisions/TNRD/H.htm

Ormsby, A., & Mannle, K. (2006). Ecotourism benefits and the role of local guides at Masoala

National Park, Madagascar. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(3), 271-287.

ōt"kwaipiiksaakii (Yellow Bird Woman) Sanctuary. (2019). Native Land Project. Montana State

University. Retrieved from http://www.montana.edu/nativeland/otkwaipiiksaakii.html

Our Story. (2019). Tides Canada. Retrieved from https://tidescanada.org/about-us/our-story/

“Outdoor Activities”. (2015). National Park Service. Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/cach/planyourvisit/outdooractivities.htm

“Partners”. (2019). Thaidene Nene the Land of the Ancestors. Retrieved from

http://landoftheancestors.ca/people/partners.html

Patterson, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2002). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data:

Hermeneutic principles, methods and case examples (Vol. 9). Champaign, IL: Sagamore

Publishing, Inc.

Pettersson, R., & Viken, A. (2007). Sami perspectives on indigenous tourism northern Europe:

commerce or cultural. Tourism and indigenous peoples, 176-187.

215

Phillips, A. (2003, June). Turning ideas on their head: the new paradigm for protected areas.

In The George Wright Forum (Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 8-32). George Wright Society.

Pimbert, M. P., & Pretty, J. N. (1997). Parks, people and professionals: putting ‘participation’

into protected area management. Social change and conservation, 16, 297-330.

Pinel, S. L., & Pecos, J. (2012). Generating Co-Management at Kasha Katuwe Tent Rocks

National Monument, New Mexico. Environmental management, 49(3), 593-604.

Pinkerton, E. (2003). Towards specificity in complexity: understanding

co-management from a social science perspective. In Wilson, D. C., Nielsen, J. R., and

Degnbol, P. (eds.), The Fisheries Co-management Experience: Accomplishments,

Challenges and Prospects. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 61–67.

“Plan unclear by Navajo Parks and Rec. for monies generated by tourism”. (2017, October 17).

Navajo-Hopi Observer. Retrieved from

https://www.nhonews.com/news/2017/oct/17/plan-unclear-navajo-parks-and-rec-monies-

generated/

Plotkin, R. (2018). Tribal Parks and Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas: Lessons

Learned from B.C. Examples. David Suzuki Foundation. Retrieved from

https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learning-centre-article/tribal-parks-and-indigenous-

protected-and-conserved-areas-lessons-learned-from-b-c-examples/

Plummer, R., & Fitzgibbon, J. (2004). Co-management of natural resources: a proposed

framework. Environmental management, 33(6), 876-885.

Polo Pena, A. I., Frias Jamilena, D. M., & Rodríguez Molina, M. Á. (2013). The effect of a

destination branding strategy for rural tourism on the perceived value of the conservation

216

of the indigenous resources of the rural tourism destination: the case of Spain. Current

Issues in Tourism, 16(2), 129-147.

Pope, A. (2019, August 21). Four things to know about Thaidene Nëné, Canada’s newest

national park reserve. Canadian Geographic. Retrieved from

https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/four-things-know-about-thaidene-nene-

canadas-newest-national-park-reserve

Porsanger, J. (2004). An essay about indigenous methodology. Nordlit, 8(1), 105-120.

Position Paper. (2016). Dasiqox Tribal Park. Retrieved from https://dasiqox.org/about-

us/resources/

Povinelli, E. A. (1993). Labor's lot: The power, history, and culture of Aboriginal action.

University of Chicago Press.

“Public Consultation in Yellowknife Presentation”. (2015). Parks Canada. Retrieved from

https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/cnpn-cnnp/thaidene-nene/apprendre-

learn/~/media/8C0BF1D0DE38491E8BD1AD1FD597CECB.ashx

Pure North Canada Limited. (2013). Thaidene Dene Tourism Strategy: A Community-Based

Approach to Sustainability. Retrieved from http://landoftheancestors.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2014/04/Thaidene-Nene-Sustainable-Tourism-Strategy-FINAL-April-

23-2013.pdf

Randall, C., & Rollins, R. B. (2009). Visitor perceptions of the role of tour guides in natural

areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 357-374.

Reading, R. P., Clark, T. W., & Kellert, S. R. (2002). Towards an endangered species

reintroduction paradigm. Endangered Species Update, 19(4), 142-146.

217

Red Cliff Code of Laws-Chapter 25. (2017). Tribal Constitution. Retrieved from http://redcliff-

nsn.gov/Government/TribalChapters/Chapter25.pdf

Red Cliff Code of Laws-Chapter 37. (2017). Tribal Constitution. Retrieved from http://redcliff-

nsn.gov/Government/TribalChapters/Chapter37.pdf

Red Cliff Integrated Resource Management Plan. (2006). Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa. Retrieved from http://redcliff-nsn.gov/Planning/RC_IRMP.pdf

“Red Cliff’s Frog Bay Tribal National Park Receives Governor’s Tourism Award for

Stewardship”. (2019). Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Retrieved from

http://redcliff-nsn.gov/Postings_Files/FBTNP_Award.pdf

Reeves, B. O., & Peacock, S. L. (2001). "Our Mountains are Our Pillows": An Ethnographic

Overview of Glacier National Park. Glacier National Park.

Reid, L. J., Smith, S. L., & McCloskey, R. (2008). The effectiveness of regional marketing

alliances: A case study of the Atlantic Canada Tourism Partnership 2000–2006. Tourism

Management, 29(3), 581-593.

Revolinski, K. (2012, October 7). Land returns to tribe, everybody wins. Chicago Tribune.

Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-trav-1007-frog-bay-20121007-

story.html

Reynolds, C. (2013, September 27). Monument Valley: A stark beauty deep in Navajo country.

Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-postcards-

monument-valley-20130926-dto-htmlstory.html

Richards, G. (2014). Tourism trends: The convergence of culture and tourism. The Netherlands:

Academy for Leisure NHTV University of Applied Sciences.

Robbins, P. (2011). Political ecology: A critical introduction (Vol. 16). John Wiley & Sons.

218

Roberts, D. (2011). Ute Mountain Tribal Park. National Geographic Traveler. Retrieved from

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/ute-mountain-tribal-park-traveler/

Rosales, H. (2010). The InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness,

16(1).

Rose, S. W. (2011, November). A new way forward: Native nations, nonprofitization,

community land trusts, and the indigenous shadow state. In Nonprofit Policy Forum (Vol.

2, No. 2). De Gruyter

Rosenberg, D. M., & Woodward, J. (2015). The Tsilhqot'in Case: The Recognition and

Affirmation of Aboriginal Title in Canada. UBCL Rev., 48, 943.

Rosier, P. C. (1999). “The Old System Is No Success”: The Blackfeet Nation's Decision to

Adopt the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. American Indian culture and research

journal, 23(1), 1-37.

Royster, J. V., Blumm, M. C., & Kronk, E. (2002). Native American natural resources law.

Cases and Materials, 228.

Rhyan, J. C., Nol, P., Quance, C., Gertonson, A., Belfrage, J., Harris, L., ... & Robbe-Austerman,

S. (2013). Transmission of brucellosis from elk to cattle and bison, Greater Yellowstone

Area, USA, 2002–2012. Emerging infectious diseases, 19(12), 1992.

Sage, J. L. (2017). Analyzing Economic and Social Opportunities and Challenges Related to

Bison Conservation in Northeast Montana. Institute for Tourism and Recreation

Research. University of Montana.

Sage, J. L., Wheeler, I., Nickerson, N. (2019). Blackfeet Conservation Area Development.

Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research. University of Montana.

219

Salazar, N. B. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: issues, threats and opportunities.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 9-22.

Sanders, J. M. (1996). A comparative study of the planning and management of Monument

Valley Tribal Park and Canyon de Chelly National Monument. Landscape and urban

planning, 36(2), 171-182.

Sanderson, E. W., Redford, K. H., Weber, B., Aune, K., Baldes, D., Berger, J., ... & Fearn, E. V.

A. (2008). The ecological future of the North American bison: conceiving long‐term,

large‐scale conservation of wildlife. Conservation biology, 22(2), 252-266.

Sandlos, J. (2014). National Parks in the Canadian North. Indigenous Peoples, national parks,

and protected areas: A new paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights, 133.

Sax, J. L., & Keiter, R. B. (2006). The realities of regional resource management: Glacier

National Park and its neighbors revisited. Ecology LQ, 33, 233.

Schmidt, C. M. (1999). Chief executive officers of California environmental organizations: a

study of personal values congruence with organizational mission (Master’s Thesis).

Retrieved from https://repository.usfca.edu/thes/1141/

Schmidt, P. M., & Peterson, M. J. (2009). Biodiversity Conservation and Indigenous Land

Management in the Era of Self‐Determination. Conservation Biology, 23(6), 1458-1466.

Schmiechen, J., & Boyle, A. (2007). Aboriginal tourism research in Australia. Tourism and

Indigenous peoples: Issues and implications, 58-72.

Schuster, R., Germain, R. R., Bennett, J. R., Reo, N. J., & Arcese, P. (2019). Vertebrate

biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in

protected areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 1-6.

220

Scott, T., (2019). Landmark Deal Terminates Penultimate Energy Lease on Badger-Two

Medicine. The Flathead Beacon. Retrieved from

https://flatheadbeacon.com/2019/10/01/landmark-deal-terminates-penultimate-energy-

lease-badger-two-medicine/

Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. (2012). Promoting community-based bird monitoring in the tropics:

Conservation, research, environmental education, capacity-building, and local incomes.

Biological Conservation, 151(1), 69-73.

Senes Consultants Limited. (2006). Thaydene Nene: State of Knowledge Report. Yellowknife,

Northwest Territories. Retrieved from

http://landoftheancestors.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/40006___Thaydene_Nene_SOK

__V7_July_2006_.pdf

Shepherd, R. (2002). Commodification, culture and tourism. Tourist studies, 2(2), 183-201.

Show, T. J. (2011). Testimony of the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation,

Montana to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. S. 399, Blackfeet Water Rights

Settlement Act. Retrieved from http://blackfeetnation.com/wp-

content/uploads/2015/08/Testimony-of-Blackfeet-Chairman-on-S.-399-Senate-Indian-

Affairs-Comm.pdf

Shyamsundar, P., & Kramer, R. (1997). Biodiversity conservation-at what cost? A study of

households in the vicinity of Madagascar's Mantadia National Park. Ambio (Sweden).

Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. (2013). Adapting Western research methods to indigenous

ways of knowing. American journal of public health, 103(12), 2185-2192.

Simpson, M. C. (2008). Community benefit tourism initiatives—A conceptual oxymoron?.

Tourism management, 29(1), 1-18.

221

Shafer, C. L. (2015). Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–

VI. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 331-348.

Smith, M. (2016). Issues in cultural tourism studies. Routledge.

Smyth, D., & Grant, C. (2012). Recognition and Support of ICCAs in Canada. Recognising and

Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples And Local

Communities: Global Overview and National Case Studies, (October 2012), 1–27.

Snodgrass, J. G., Upadhyay, C., Debnath, D., & Lacy, M. G. (2016). The mental health costs of

human displacement: a natural experiment involving indigenous Indian conservation

refugees. World Development Perspectives, 2, 25-33.

Social Ventures Australia. (2016). Analysis of the Current and Future Value of Indigenous

Guardian Work in Canada’s Northwest Territories. Retrieved from

https://www.ilinationhood.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/value-in-indigenous-guardian-

work-nwt.pdf

Spaeder, J. J., & Feit, H. A. (2005). Co-management and indigenous communities: barriers and

bridges to decentralized resource management: introduction. Anthropologica, 47(2), 147-

154.

Spence, M. D. (1999). Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the

National Parks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Steinberger, H. (2014 April 9). One of the World’s Top Destinations: Ute Mountain Tribal Park

is an Adventure. Indian Country Today. Retrieved from

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/one-of-the-world-s-top-destinations-

ute-mountain-tribal-park-is-an-adventure-3FrSpN5cg0Gwn70yuxA1UQ/

222

Stevens, S. (2009). Seeking respect for a Sherpa community conserved area. Rights-based

approaches, 203.

Stevens, S. (2013). National parks and ICCAs in the High Himalayan region of Nepal:

Challenges and opportunities. Conservation and Society, 11(1), 29.

Stevens, S. (2014). Indigenous peoples, national parks, and protected areas: a new paradigm

linking conservation, culture, and rights. Tucson: The Univ. of Arizona Press.

Suntikul, W. (2007). The effects of tourism development on indigenous populations in Luang

Namtha Province, Laos. Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications, 128-

140.

Sustainable Tourism Protocol Agreement. (2003). Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government.

Retrieved March 10 2019, from

http://xeni.ca/Home/Documentation/tabid/66/Default.aspx

Tacconi, L., & Bennett, J. (1995). Biodiversity conservation: the process of economic assessment

and establishment of a protected area in Vanuatu. Development and change, 26(1), 89-

110.

Taylor, J. P. (2001). Authenticity and sincerity in tourism. Annals of tourism research, 28(1), 7-

26.

“Thaidene Nene Trust”. (2019). Land of the Ancestors. Retrieved from

http://landoftheancestors.ca/thaidene-nene-trust.html

The Naadam Festival of Manly Sports. (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.mongoluls.net/nadaam.shtml

Thomas, I. (2017). Multi-species action plan for Waterton Lakes National Park., Bar U Ranch

national historic site. Parks Canada. Retrieved from

223

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-

registry/action-plans/waterton-lakes-national-park-historic-site.html#section_3

Thornton, T. F. (2014). A Tale of Three Parks: Tlingit Conservation, Representation, and

Repatriation in Southeastern Alaska's National Parks. In S. Stevens (Ed.), Indigenous

peoples, national parks, and protected areas: a new paradigm linking conservation,

culture, and rights (pp. 108-129). Tucson: The Univ. of Arizona Press.

Tiberghien, G., Bremner, H., & Milne, S. (2017). Performance and visitors’ perception of

authenticity in eco-cultural tourism. Tourism Geographies, 19(2), 287-300.

“Timeline”. (2019). Thaidene Nene the Land of the Ancestors. Retrieved from

http://landoftheancestors.ca/timeline-thaidene-nene.html

Tom, B. (2018a). Internal Audit of Monument Valley Tribal Park Navajo Parks and Recreation

Department (Rep. No. 18-10). The Navajo Nation.

Tom, B. (2018b). Internal Audit of Little Colorado River Tribal Park Navajo Parks and

Recreation Department (Rep. No. 18-12). The Navajo Nation.

Tom, B. (2018c). A Follow Up Review of the Navajo Parks and Recreation Department

Corrective Action Plan Implementation (Rep. No. 18-24). The Navajo Nation.

Tom, B. (2018d). Internal Audit of Lake Powell Tribal Park Navajo Parks and Recreation

Department (Rep. No. 18-15). The Navajo Nation.

Torbit, S., & LaRose, L. (2001). A commentary on bison and cultural restoration: Partnership

between the National Wildlife Federation and the Intertribal Bison Cooperative. Great

Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 539.

Torres-Reyes, R. (1970). Mesa Verde National Park: an administrative history, 1906-1970.

Retrieved from http://www.npshistory.com/publications/meve/adhi/contents.htm

224

“Tourism”. (2019). Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Retrieved from http://redcliff-

nsn.gov/Tourism/tourism.htm

Treaty Natural Resources Division. (2019). Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa. Retrieved from http://redcliff-nsn.gov/divisions/TNRD/TNRD.htm

Treaty Natural Resources Division. (2018). 2017 Annual Report to BIA. Red Cliff Band of Lake

Superior Chippewa. Retrieved from http://redcliff-

nsn.gov/divisions/TNRD/PIC_Files/Annual%20Report%20to%20BIA%20_%20Red%20

Cliff%20FINAL%20_%20March%202018.pdf

Treaty Natural Resources Division Newsletter. (Spring 2012). Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa. Retrieved from http://redcliff-nsn.gov/Newsletter/news/TNR-Spring-2012-

Newsletter.pdf

Treaty Natural Resources Division Newsletter. (Summer 2017). Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa. Retrieved from http://redcliff-

nsn.gov/Postings_files/2017%20Summer%20Ganawenjigaade.pdf

Trimble, S. (1993). The Ute. The People: Indians of the American Southwest. School of

American Research Press.

Trumpener, B. (2019, July 2). ‘That’s our church’: Tsilhqot’in roadblock halt Taseko mine work

on land considered sacred. CBC. Retrieved from:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tsilhqot-in-nation-sacred-lakes-taseko-

prosperity-gold-1.5196626

Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, SCC44. (2014).

Tooman, L. A. (1997). Tourism and development. Journal of Travel Research, 35(3), 33-40.

225

Too Sacred To Develop. (2019). Blackfeet Nation. Retrieved from http://www.badger-

twomedicine.org/

United States Department of Agriculture. (2014). 2012 Census of Agriculture. American Indian

Reservations. Volume 2, Subject Series, Part 5. Retrieved from

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/American_In

dian_Reservations/AMINDIAN.pdf

UNWTO. (2012). UNWTO Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage. https://www.e-

unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284414796

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2019). Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic

Accounts, Washington, D.C., as reported in Headwaters Economics’ Economic Profile

System. Retrieved from https://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system/

“Ute Mountain Tribal Trip”. (2013). Rimrock Outfitters. Retrieved from

https://rimrockoutfitters.com/come-riding/pack-trips/ute-mountain-tribal-trip/

Vasile, M. (2018). The vulnerable bison: practices and meanings of rewilding in the Romanian

Carpathians. Conservation and Society, 16(3), 217-231.

“Visitation Statistics”. (2019). Mesa Verde National Park. National Park Service. Retrieved

from https://www.nps.gov/meve/learn/management/statistics.htm

Ward, G. M. A. L. T., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a sustainable tourism

transition : The challenge of developing and using indicators. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Water Compact. (2017). Blackfeet Nation. Retrieved from

https://blackfeetnation.com/watercompact/

226

West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected

areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 35, 251-277.

White, V., McCrum, G., Blackstock, K. L., & Scott, A. (2006). Indicators and sustainable

tourism: Literature review. The Macaulay Institute. Aberdeen.

Whitford, M., & Ruhanen, L. (2016). Indigenous tourism research, past and present: Where to

from here? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8-9).

doi:10.1080/09669582.2016.1189925

Whitney-Squire, K. (2016). Sustaining local language relationships through indigenous

community-based tourism initiatives. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8-9), 1156-

1176.

Whitt, L. (2009). Science, colonialism, and indigenous peoples: The cultural politics of law and

knowledge. Cambridge University Press.

“Who we are”. (2019). Dasiqox Tribal Park. Retrieved from https://dasiqox.org/

“Why Here?”. (2017). Proposed Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve. Parks Canada. Retrieved

from https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/cnpn-cnnp/thaidene-nene/pourquoiici-whyhere.

Wilkinson, C. (2013). Thaidene Nene-Land of Our Ancestors Business Case. Retrieved from

http://landoftheancestors.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Business-case-FINAL-with-

maps-April-2013-title.pdf

Williams, P. W., & O’Neil, B. (2007). Building a triangulated research foundation for indigenous

tourism in BC, Canada. Tourism and Indigenous peoples: Issues and implications, 40-57.

Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D. R., Fesenmaier, J., & Van Es, J. C. (2001). Factors for success in

rural tourism development. Journal of Travel research, 40(2), 132-138.

227

Wilson, N. J., Mutter, E., Inkster, J., & Satterfield, T. (2018). Community-Based Monitoring as

the practice of Indigenous governance: A case study of Indigenous-led water quality

monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. Journal of environmental management, 210, 290-

298.

Wilson, C., & Tisdell, C. (2003). Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife-based marine

tourism: sea turtles and whales as case studies. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8(1), 49-

58.

Wiseman, N. D., & Bardsley, D. K. (2016). Monitoring to Learn, Learning to Monitor: A Critical

Analysis of Opportunities for Indigenous Community‐Based Monitoring of

Environmental Change in Australian Rangelands. Geographical Research, 54(1), 52-71.

Wohlberg, M. (2015, April 13). Proposed area for Thaidene Nene ‘could shrink’: negotiator.

Northern Journal. Ft. Smith, Northwest Territories. Retrieved from

https://norj.ca/2015/04/proposed-area-for-thaidene-nene-could-shrink-negotiator/

Wood, M. C., & Welcker, Z. (2008). Tribes as trustees again (part I): the emerging tribal role in

the conservation trust movement. Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., 32, 373.

WTO. (1985). The State's Role in Protecting and Promoting Culture as a Factor of Tourism

Development and the Proper Use and Exploitation of the National Cultural Heritage of

Sites and Monument for Tourism. Retrieved from: https://www.e-

unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284409051

Yerian, L. (2016, September 27). New interpretive site at Grand Falls, east of Leupp, a cultural

experience. Navajo-Hopi Observer. Retrieved from

https://www.nhonews.com/news/2016/sep/27/new-interpretive-site-grand-falls-east-

leupp-cultu/

228

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage

publications.

Young, R. K. (1997). The Ute Indians of Colorado in the twentieth century. Norman: University

of Oklahoma Press.

Yurth, C. (2009, December 17). Refurbished MV visitors' center tells people's story. Navajo

Times. Retrieved from https://navajotimes.com/entertainment/2009/1209/121709mv.php

Zurba, M., Beazley, K., English, E., & Buchmann-Duck, J. (2019). Indigenous Protected and

Conserved Areas (IPCAs), Aichi Target 11 and Canada’s Pathway to Target 1: Focusing

Conservation on Reconciliation. Land, 8(1), 10.

229

Appendix A: Expanded Case Study Information

This appendix provides additional quotes and information regarding the development of the five

Tribal Park case studies included in this study.

Frog Bay Timeline:

The process of compiling land to create FBTNP began with the Johnsons, a non-native landowning family, on the reservation, offering to sell a shoreline parcel of pristine boreal forest to the tribe. The family agreed upon a price for the property of half market value with the stipulation that the property be preserved in its natural state (Probst, 2012). In 2010, the Red

Cliff Band signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Bayfield Regional Conservancy regarding the Johnson Parcel (Red Cliff Tribal Council Meeting, 2010). The funding for the purchase of this first 90-acre parcel of land was acquired in 2011 (Interview Transcript, 2018).

The Red Cliff Treaty Natural Resources Division then began the building of minimal trail systems and bridges through this parcel and FBTNP opened to the public in August of 2012

(Clark, 2012). In 2017, the Red Cliff Band and Bayfield County signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) (Bayfield County Tribal Relations Committee, 2016)that led to the 2017 addition of Bayfield County Timber Reserve land into the FCCMA (“Funding”, 2018). In 2017, the tribe added 40 acres of tribal trust land to the FCCMA (Interview Transcript, 2018) and an

87-acre parcel of lakeshore-property to the FBTNP (“Frog Bay Tribal National Park”, 2019;

“Funding”, 2018; Interview Transcript, 2018). On June 13, 2017 the Tribal Council moved to approve zoning changes for all four parcels of land from “Forestry” or “Residential” to

“Preserved” (Red Cliff Tribal Council Meeting, 2017). In 2018, the Red Cliff Band secured funding from the GLRI to purchase 210 additional acres of the Frog Creek Watershed to add into the FCCMA (“Funding”, 2018).

230

In the case of FBTNP, there were several documents that stood out as important to the planning and development of the Tribal Park (Table 1). These documents include: (1) the MOU between the Red Cliff Band and the Bayfield Regional Conservancy regarding the Johnson

Parcel; (2) the MOA between the Red Cliff Band and Bayfield County regarding acquisition of county land within the reservation; (3) the Red Cliff Code of Laws which includes a “preserved” land designation; and (4) the Red Cliff IRMP which outlines intentions for the tribe to regain control of reservation land-base.

Frog Bay Stakeholders:

Bayfield Regional Conservancy holds the easement for the Johnson parcel (the first land parcel), for all later acquisitions the tribe chose to keep the land under tribal control and use the tribal zoning ordinance (Interview Transcript, 2018). The Johnson family had a relationship with

Bayfield Regional Conservancy members, which may have been the reason for a high level of inclusion of the conservancy in that first parcel (Probst, 2012). The Johnson family appeared to be enthusiastic about the opportunity to work with the tribe on land repatriation and conservation. For example, David Johnson, a professor at the University of who purchased the

90 acre parcel in the 1980s describes, “I could not be happier about knowing that the Frog Bay property will be preserved for the future. I’ve always felt a little embarrassed at owning property that should have been in the tribe’s hands all along” (David Johnson quoted in “A New Shoreline

Tribal Park”, 2012: para 9).

Bayfield County appointed a tribal relations committee to facilitate reparation of lands to the Red Cliff tribe. According to an article in the Ashland Daily Press, a total of 160 acres of land from the county forest within the reservation was sold to the tribe. This article noted the

MOU resolving that the parties agree to "work with each other to seek a suitable land exchange,

231

trade or other conveyance of lands.” (Olivo, 2018: para 5) The MOU between the county and the tribe was intended to lay out an agreement regarding future land acquisitions. However, in 2018 the Red Cliff Band filed a lawsuit against Bayfield County regarding Bayfield County trying to impose county zoning restrictions within the reservation (Kaeding, 2018).

The National Park Service Operated Apostle Islands National Lakeshore manages the islands which neighbor Red Cliff Band reservation, as well as making up part of the Lakeshore which is on the reservation. Madeline Island of the Apostle Islands chain was the location of a large Ojibwe village historically. The National Park Service website recognizes this historical use of the land, “According to their written and oral history, the Ojibwe were the original inhabitants of this area. In order to gain the materials, they needed to survive, they traveled throughout the islands with their main village being Madeline Island” (“Home of the Ojibwe”,

2015: para 1).

There appears to be partnering on management between the Red Cliff Band and Apostle

Islands occurring, for example a recent acquisition of a Lake Superior shoreline parcel by the

Red Cliff Band stated co-management intentions:

Acquire and permanently protect a 53-acre parcel of high quality undeveloped private

land on Lake Superior shoreline; the 53-acre lakeshore parcel of boreal forest habitat will

be tribally-protected within the boundaries of the Red Cliff Reservation and ensure

landscape connectivity with adjoining protected lands of the Apostle Island National

Lakeshore; management will occur in collaboration with Apostle Islands National

Lakeshore (NPS). (“Funding”, 2019)

232

The relationship between the National Park Service and the Red Cliff Band was described by

Henry Buffalo, a Red Cliff elder at a ceremony for the new Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Quarter:

The Red Cliff and Bad River bands were instrumental in obtaining federal protection for

the Apostle Islands, while also advocating to maintain their tribal lands and their hunting

and fishing rights. It was in 1970 that President Richard Nixon signed legislation

establishing the national lakeshore. Buffalo touted it as a positive example of agencies

working together to promote conservation and tribal rights while also spurring tourism

and economic development in the region. ‘We've been partners for a long time - the tribal

governments, the federal government, the state governments, the local governments,’ he

said. ‘And that's not going to end soon. It's always important in those relationships to

look out for each other.’ (Olsen, 2018: para 10)

Ute Mountain Ute Timeline:

On May 2, 1972, the UMUTP was listed as “Ute Mountain Ute Mancos Canyon Historic

District” under the National Historic Preservation Act (“Mancos Canyon Historic District”,

2019). In 2011, the Ute Mountain Ute received funding to develop a Cultural Resources

Management Plan (CRMP) and between 2011 and 2014 were working on developing the CRMP and an Integrated Resources Management Plan (IRMP) (Jampolsky, 2014). In 2018, the UMUTP was in the process of being mapped with drones to document the existing conditions of the ruins within the UMUTP which is significantly larger than the neighboring Mesa Verde National Park,

“To better document ruins in the vast park, the Ute Mountain Ute tribe and PaleoWest are kicking it up a notch with photogrammetry and flying drones to create detailed maps and 3D models of the park’s cliff dwellings, mesa pueblos and rock art panels” (Mimiaga, 2018: para 8).

233

The project is being conducted as a partnership between the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Historic

Preservation Office and PaleoWest Archeology firm, with assistance from a grant provided by the Colorado Historical Society (“Grants Awarded”, 2019).

The Ute retained this land despite frequent negotiations with the NPS. In the 1960s the expansion of tourism as a viable economic venture in this area was recognized by members of the Ute Mountain Ute as well as the NPS:

Tourism is perhaps the greatest single factor in the economy of the Four Corners Region

and is growing by leaps and bounds. Because of the impact of travel and the need to

maintain the quality interpretive programs at Mesa Verde, as well as prevent damage to

our park resources, we may have to limit visitation to Mesa Verde National Park. The

development of facilities in Mancos Canyon or on Ute lands could be of significant value

to the tribe and every effort should be exerted to preserve and protect the ruins as well as

the environment in which they are located from spoliation until such time as they might

be developed for visitation. (Superintendent of Mesa Verde NP to Superintendent of the

Ute Mountain Ute Indian Agency cited by Torres-Reyes, 1970: Chapter 13) .

Ute Mountain Ute Stakeholder Relationships:

Relationships between the NPS and the UMUTP regarding the Mancos canyon area has varied over the years with conversations at times leaning towards plans for collaborating regarding management. There were also conversations at a meeting in Washington D.C. in 1967 which led to the proposal for a plan of management between the NPS and the Ute Mountain Ute representatives:

What prompted the director's proposal in 1967 was that the Utes by 1964 were becoming

quite interested in the possibilities of obtaining income from tourism and apparently were

234

considering submitting a proposal to turn part of their reservation to the National Park

Service, with the Utes to receive a portion of the gate receipts and other income collected

by the park (Superintendent monthly report, May 1964 as cited in Torres-Reyes, 1970:

Chapter 13).

Conflicts have arisen regarding a section of Mesa Verde which passes through land the Ute

Mountain Ute refused to cede. These conflicts including Ute members erecting concession stands and Ute operated helicopter tours out of this location (Lavender, 1987; Martin, 2006; Trimble,

1993). These tours proved to not be as profitable as hoped, ending in 1990, concession stands and other tourism efforts remained a conflict between the tribe and the NPS, eventually the NPS decided to reroute the road to not pass through the reservation (Keller & Turek, 1998). Today there are certain tours in the UMUTP which require passing through Mesa Verde NP to access, requiring the UMUTP guides meet visitors at the Mesa Verde NP entrance to travel together to these sites (Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park, 2018). For example, “The Ute have borrowed an idea from their white neighbors and adapted it to their own ends, permitting limited development within the park” (Burnham, 2000: 265).

The tension regarding the best management options for the Mancos Canyon area extended beyond conflicts between the NPS and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Within the tribe even the hereditary chief Jack House who was eventually a proponent of the UMUTP development, had his hesitations. Earnest House Sr. is quoted by Philip Burnham in “Indian Country, Gods

County” describing Jack House’s reason for being hesitant about the tribal park idea in the beginning was concern that the tribe didn’t have the resources to manage it (2000).

Although some members of the Ute Mountain Ute were supportive of moving forward to develop tourism on Ute Mountain Ute lands through a Tribal Park, there was considerable

235

opposition from a contingent of the tribe. In 1971, Chief Jack House died and apparently opposition to the Tribal Park development burned down his abandoned dwelling (Young, 1997).

Arthur Cuthair, the director of the UMUTP from 1970-1989, said in an interview with Richard

Young for his 1997 book, “The Ute Indians of Colorado in the Twentieth Century” that his house was also shot at by members who were opposed to the UMUTP designation (Young, 1997).

Some of the opposition was centered on hesitation to open up the already limited Ute Mountain

Ute land base to the public, “While many tribal members welcomed the jobs and revenue, others strongly opposed opening their homeland to intrusion by the non-Ute world.” (Young, 1997:

168) There was also concern by some members of the community that opening up the Mancos

Canyon ruins to the public would be disturbing the spirits of the ancient ones (Akens, 1987).

The under the radar tourism status may be a limiting factor in the UMUTP as an economic development tool but might be necessary for the goals of cultural resource conservation. Concerns for increased visitation in the UMUTP include the disappearing of artifacts due to removal by visitors: “Potsherds still litter the ground at the tribal park, but they are disappearing as visitors illegally pocket them, as they’ve disappeared at Mesa Verde”

(Mimiaga, 2018: para 20). PaleoWest archaeologist James Potter is quoted describing the removal as: “It is a case of ruins being loved to death” (Mimiaga, 2018: para 21).

Navajo Nation Timeline:

In 1958, the first NNPRD Tribal Park, MVNTP was established through an advisory committee resolution (Perrottet, 2010; Saunders, 1996; Yurth, 2009). “With the passage of that resolution Monument Valley became the first tribal park created on American Indian reservation lands” (Saunders, 1996: 176). In 1962 the Lake Powell Navajo Tribal Park (LPNTP) which includes the Antelope Canyon area was established (Tom, 2018b) and the Navajo Nation

236

formally requested that Canyon de Chelly be transferred back to the tribe and managed as a

Navajo Tribal Park. In 1974, after funding was not received for development of infrastructure in

MVNTP, the NNPRD and the NPS began negotiations for the NPS to take over management of

MVNTP. Strong community backlash halted these negotiations. In 1990, the NNPRD received their own Enterprise Fund within tribal treasury services so that monies generated by the Navajo

Tribal Parks would go back into the NNPRD rather than the Navajo Nation general fund

(Saunders, 1996). In 1992, the Navajo Nation Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) is established and attributed to the Navajo Nation Tourism Department (“Discover Navajo”, 2019). In 2009, the

“View” hotel was opened in MVTNP, the renovated Visitor Center/Museum in MVNTP also opened this year. In 2015, the process began for a Strategic Agreement for Stewardship of

Canyon de Chelly between the Navajo Nation, The NPS, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

In 2017, the NNPRD announced the official planning process had begun for a Management plan for: Monument Valley, Lake Powell, and Little Colorado River Navajo Tribal Parks. (“Navajo

Nation, BIA & NPS”, 2018). In 2018, the Navajo Nation, NPS, and BIA signed a Strategic

Agreement for stewardship of Canyon de Chelly which clarified responsibilities between the three parties and outlined a plan for a formal joint management plan for Canyon de Chelly (“A

Strategic Agreement”, 2018).

Navajo Nation Stakeholders:

According to a NNPRD spokesperson, residents of Monument Valley were opposed to tribal park development in the beginning, however now many of the families in the valley are involved in the tourism industry as guides or employees of the park or hotel, and opposition has decreased (Interview Transcript, 2018).

237

In 2008, the View hotel opened in MVTNP in the same area as the visitor center. This hotel is privately owned by a Navajo woman. The website of the View hotel boasts the dedication of the hotel to job creation in the local community, specifically the Oljato Chapter, and the natural environment of MVNTP. For example, the website describes a dinner hosted every December by the hotel where they serve a meal and provide gifts and supplies for the winter months to MVNTP residents “as a thank you for allowing us to help show these beautiful lands to the rest of the world.” (Events at the View, 2019) Tour operators reported $1.3 million gross receipts in FY2016. The Navajo Nation office of tax commission collects 5% sales tax from tour operators. According to this report the price of a tour ranges from $50-$150 per person per a specified time period (Tom, 2018a). In an interview for the Washington post in 2010, “The

View” hotel reported grossing 8 million in their first year open and paying 1 million in taxes which went to the Navajo Nation (Trejos, 2010). Awareness to make the hotel blend into the natural landscape are apparent in the planning of the hotel, “Every effort has been taken to make the hotel blend into the landscape of the red rock mesa so the visitor to Monument Valley will enjoy the view from the hotel as well as the view of the hotel from the valley floor”

(Environmental Policies at The View, 2019: para 5).

The NNPRD website highlights the Navajo people that live in the tribal parks and requests visitors respect their space: “Many Navajo families still live on the reservation annually, please be respectful of home sites and animals in these areas. The terrain is rough, water is scarce, and the weather is often extreme in most areas.” (“Backcountry Hiking and Camping

Permits”, 2019: para 2) Other articles written about tribal parks such as MVNTP have explained the importance of being conscientious to the residents of the area:

238

To leave the loop road, you must hire a Navajo guide. You may notice a weather-beaten

trailer, perhaps neighbored by a rounded earthen mound. These are private homes and

traditional Hogans, without electricity or running water, that house a handful of Navajo

families that date back here for generations. Many of them make their living from

tourists, but most don't want a paved road inside the park because then too many would

come. (Reynolds, 2013: para 9)

In 2009, the visitor center at MVNTP was renovated. Display development was conducted with consultation of the Navajo Nation Museum staff, and local valley residents providing feedback on what interpretation they would like in the visitor center exhibits. Funding for this project came from a combination of sources including: the NNPRD, the owners of “The View” hotel, and the Navajo Capital Improvement Projects office. The goals of the refurbished visitor center include to introduce visitors to Navajo culture, both contemporary and historical. (Yurth, 2009).

In the years following 1957 the format and the management of parks within the department has shifted. This case study has lacked the formal engagement and planning processes used in some of the other case study locations, such as Dasiqox Tribal Park initiative.

In part because of this limited planning, Navajo community support for the parks has varied. For example, community members living in Monument Valley have varied in support for the

MVNTP with some families expressing enthusiasm while others express displeasure with tourism and visitors on their lands. For example, one author described the state of community opinion regarding the Navajo Tribal Parks as: “Thirty years later Navajo parks remain at a standstill. The 109-chapter houses can veto new parks in their locales; if some could undo the past, there would be no parks of any kind.” (Keller and Turek, 1998: 213).

239

There have also been concerns expressed by community members involved in grazing and ranching because of a lack of clear boundaries at locations such as the Little Colorado River

Navajo Tribal Park.

I asked if we could get a boundary so we know where the park is and where it’s not.

Because this is where we live and where we ranch,” he said. “We don’t want people

driving everywhere. We don’t appreciate that at all. There are so many people now and

there are going to be more people. (Yerian, 2016: para 11)

Concerns over jurisdictional boundaries were also expressed by the LeChee chapter president in a report to the Resources and Development Committee, “the common boundaries between the

Navajo Parks and Recreation, National Park Services, and LeChee Chapter needs to be clarified, because those boundaries present many challenges and add another obstacle to pursuing economic development opportunities” (“Plan unclear”, 2017: para 10). There are also internal problems with oversite of the existing sites: “During our visit to the park, we found the fee collector supervisor was not reconciling the daily cash count reports against the computerized ticketing machine daily reports. As a result, cash shortages and overages were not being detected” (Tom, 2018b: 9).

Despite relationship concerns internally, between park management and tribal members and the Chapters, the NNPRD has utilized external partnerships to improve the resources available. For example, the Little Colorado River Tribal Park had new picnic areas and interpretive signs installed with funding support from Coconino County: “Fowler said there are many partners who made the interpretive site possible. Community members were interviewed to tell their stories about their canyons and that is how the interpretive sites (including Grand Falls and the Little Colorado Tribal Park) were developed.” (Locke, 2017: para 8). According to the

240

2018 Auditor follow-up report, the NNPRD budget for FY 2017 was $5.5 million. This report describes improper record keeping of how this budget was spent and expresses concern that

“improving parks infrastructure and facilities” (Tom, 2018c: 5) is not a priority.

Thaidene Nene Timeline:

A MOU was signed in 2006 between the LKDFN and Parks Canada to move forward on negotiations regarding the proposed national park reserve. In 2008, the LKDFN formally released their vision for Thaidene Nene. By 2013, Parks Canada and LKDFN negotiators had reached a draft Establishment Agreement (“Timeline- Thaidene Nene”, 2019). In 2014, the negotiations regarding Thaidene Nene grew more complex with the passing of the Northwest

Territories Devolution Act, which led to the lands for the Thaidene Nene proposal being under the administration and control of the GNWT (“Chronology”, 2017). The GNWT had different ideas about what the proposed boundaries of Thaidene Nene should be. The impacts of devolution and the resulting transfer of power over Crown land to the GNWT added potential jurisdictional complexities to the negotiations of Thaidene Nene as there was now another voice with interests and concerns at the table, “Federal and First Nation negotiators had nearly sealed the deal on the creation of the national park, but the jurisdictional shuffle has created an added challenge for the park’s formation due to GNWT concerns about the park’s size, measuring more than 33,500 square-km” (Wolhberg, 2014: para 3). The GNWT at the time was described as being largely supportive of the creation of Thaidene Nene, with some concerns regarding the size of the park reserve. The GNWT wanted to see a smaller designated area and requested different territorial conservation tools be used in addition to federal park designation (Wolhberg, 2014).

241

Additionally, the NWTMN expressed their interests and concerns in the development of

Thaidene Nene as expressed by the Métis Nation president: "’We want to make sure that all our harvesting rights are protected, our hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering, that has to all be accommodated” (“N.W.T. Métis join talks”, 2014: para 2). This article also describes NWTMN as wanting economic benefits coming out of the park to be shared equally between First Nations, and a role in management of the park to be given to Metis. “While Lutsel K'e has been the driving force behind the park, the Métis would like to have a say in everything from the park’s name to the final boundaries.” (“N.W.T. Métis join talks”, 2014: para 8). By July of 2015 the

GNWT, NWTMN, Parks Canada, and the LKDFN released agreed upon proposed boundaries for Thaidene Nene (Figure 14). In this newly agreed upon area, the proposed protected area decreased in size from 33,500 km2 to 26,376 km2. In 2018 negotiations ended, and in January of

2019 members of the LKDFN voted to ratify the establishment of Thaidene Nene (“Timeline”,

2019). In August 2019 the involved parties signed the agreements to officially permanently protect Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve (Blake, 2019).

Thaidene Nene Stakeholders:

The NWT Metis (NWTMN) became involved in 2014 because Thaidene Nene is on land considered part of traditional territory by NWTMN, and they expressed their interest in the development of an impact and benefit plan before they could support or approve the National

Park Reserve. The NWTMN has become involved in part due to initial concerns with the development of a national park reserve in the area because in 1922 Wood Buffalo National Park was established and the shooting of buffalo within the park was strictly prohibited. “Treaty

Indians” could hunt other animals within the park but the Metis were not allowed this privilege.

242

This fueled Dene fears of further restrictions in areas such as Thaidene Nene (Senes Consultants

Limited, 2006).

Although the general goals of the four government parties involved in Thaidene Nene development may be similar, the language used in statements made by LKDFN and Parks

Canada show some differences in philosophy involving the primary intentions of park reserve development.

The goals of Parks Canada focus on protecting ecosystems and habitat:

The goal of establishing a national park is to: protect the diversity of vegetation and

landscape features of representative ecosystems; maintain the ecological integrity of

wildlife habitat and plant species; and provide opportunities for quality visitor

experiences such as recreational activities and the presentation of natural and cultural

heritage. (“Why Here?”,2017: para 1)

For the LKDFN focus more on the precedent being set and the benefits to the community, economically and culturally:

Our goal is to create a new form of protected area in Canada that will enable us as

indigenous people to fulfill our responsibility as stewards and hosts in our traditional

territory. Our vision is a prosperous future, with sustainable livelihoods for our people

that respect our rich heritage and stewardship responsibilities. We will make sure that our

ways of knowing and doing will be practiced for generations to come. (Lutsel K’e Dene

First Nation, 2013: 2)

In public meetings regarding the Thaidene Nene development process Parks Canada describes

Thaidene Nene as “Cooperative management developed with LKDFN and NWTMN” (“Public

243

Consultation”, 2015). It is too soon in the process to see how these differences in motivating factors will play out in the management dynamics of Thaidene Nene.

On the CPAWS website, they describe their role in the process as “working with the

LKDFN since 2010 to build the public support necessary for protection of TN permanently”.

(“Thaidene Nene-CPAWS”, 2019). They work on public relations and building relationships with external parties. CPAWS has expressed concerns in the GNWT legislation and the impacts of devolution which gave GNWT more control over the proposed park area, "’The existing legislation, the Territorial Parks Act, that would be used to protect Thaidene Nene in our mind is not strong enough,’ says Erica Janes, a conservation outreach coordinator with the society. ‘It's not guaranteed to be permanent and it doesn't explicitly prohibit industrial development.’"

(“N.W.T. gov’t to unveil, 2015: para 6).

The communities surrounding Thaidene Nene, such as Yellowknife and Hay River have expressed general support although there are concerns regarding access. According to a statement released by the Thaidene Nene team, 80% of residents of Hay River and Yellowknife support creation of Thaidene Nene. The reasons for this public support were stated as: “Most respondents said that they were supportive because Thaidene Nene will protect the environment and the beauty of the area. Other reasons given included protection of culture and traditional ways of life and strengthening the economy.” (“Public Opinion”, 2014: para 3)

External groups have expressed interest in being involved in finding ways for the

LKDFN to develop sustainable economic ventures in the area, for example Ducks Unlimited has an initiative called the Boreal Initiative which supports the sustainable tourism model in

Northwest Territories. Ducks Unlimited sponsored an article exploring outfitting and guiding as a potential economic venture for the community to explore. A representative from Ducks

244

Unlimited went to Lutsel K’e to look at guiding hunts as an alternative and a way to foster economic development in these remote areas without bringing in more resource extraction industries (such as diamond mining):

Tribal leaders are looking instead for an activity that can bring income but allow

members to stay in their remote communities and engage in work that meshes with their

sustainable land ethic. Their answer: ecotourism. In the summer, the Dene hope to run

campgrounds and work as rangers in a huge tribal park along the north shore of Great

Slave. And in the fall and winter, they hope to guide visiting hunters to moose, caribou,

trophy lake trout, and ducks. (McKean, 2015: para 16)

Dasiqox Timeline:

In 2014, the British Columbia Government and the Tŝilhqot’in National Government signed the

Tŝilhqot’in Stewardship Agreement, first signed on June 1, 2014 and amended on March 31,

2017. The description of this agreement defines the purpose of the document as: “a strategic engagement agreement for shared decision-making respecting land and resource management”

(Tsilhqot’in Stewardship Agreement, 2017:1) that intends to “result in more effective understanding of accommodation options and ways of resolving land and resource disputes among parties.” (Tsilhqot’in Stewardship Agreement, 2017:5) However, the issuance of resource extraction permits in Tŝilhqot’in territory without Tŝilhqot’in consent has continued (Lavoie,

2018).

The Nemiah Declaration, created by the Xeni Gwet’in on August 23, 1989, declared Xeni

Gwet’in territory as the Nemiah Aboriginal Wilderness Preserve with regulations against motorized use, mining, commercial logging, and commercial road building. This declaration and the designation of Nemiah Aboriginal Wilderness Preserve was the catalyst to the court case

245

regarding aboriginal title which eventually led to 2014 affirmation of Aboriginal Title and Rights to traditional territory. The Tsilhqot’in National Government was seeking more input in the uses of their traditional territory, and commercial logging was not an acceptable activity to members of the Xeni Gwet’in community. The intention of first nation leaders to become actively engaged in the protection and management of their traditional territory was described by Dinwoodie in his

2002 book, “Reserve Memories”: “Commercial uses of public lands effectively precluded Native use. The consequent reduction in the resource base is a primary motivation for participating more actively in land management and public politics” (85).

Following the 2014 affirmation of Declared Aboriginal Title, the Affirmation of the

Nemiah Declaration document was signed recognizing the Nemiah Declaration as the law governing the Declared Aboriginal Title and Rights Area. On March 19, 2015, chiefs from the six first nations (Tl’etinqox, Xeni Gwet’in, Tŝi Deldel, Yuneŝit'in, Tl’esqox, ʔEsdilagh) comprising the Tŝilhqot’in National Government, signed the Affirmation of the Nemiah

Declaration stating that all activities within the Declared Title and Rights Area must meet terms outlined in the 1989 Nemiah Declaration, including within Dasiqox Tribal Park (Affirmation of the Nemiah Declaration, 2015).

The current battle is over the issuance of a mining permit to the Taseko Mining Company for Prosperity Mine located at Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) within the Tŝilhqot’in Territory and the proposed Dasiqox Tribal Park. The proposal of Dasiqox as a Tribal Park was partially in response to these pressures. A media release document describes how the Dasiqox initiative came to be: “Our decision to announce a tribal park in our territory emerged partly from our fight to protect Teẑtan Biny and Nabas from a proposed copper and gold mine” (Dasiqox

Backgrounder, 2018: 1).

246

There have been many documents developed by the Tsilhqot’in National Government; the Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in First Nations; Dasiqox leadership; and their partners that help to lay the groundwork for Dasiqox and define the vision and management. On September 10,

2014, a Letter of Understanding was signed between the Tŝilhqot’in National Government and the Government of British Columbia “committing to strengthen their government to government relationship and to undertake negotiations in good faith towards a lasting reconciliation agreement between the Tŝilhqot’in people and the Province of British Columbia” (Letter of

Understanding, 2014:1). This Letter of Understanding led to a Letter of Intent outlining objectives for reconciliation (Letter of Intent, 2015). One outcome of these letters was the

Nenqay Deni Accord, intended as a comprehensive framework to facilitate long-term negotiations and relationships. The acknowledgements of this accord describe: “A tremendous opportunity stands before all of us, if we can overcome conflict and truly recognize and celebrate our different cultures, laws and governance, and our responsibilities to our lands and our future generations.” (Nenqay Deni Accord, 2016: 3) The Nenqay Deni Accord describes eight “pillars of reconciliation” that the parties commit to work together on. Two of these pillars relate directly to Dasiqox: “Tŝilhqot’in Management Role for Lands and Resources in Tŝilhqot’in Territory” and “Sustainable Economic Base” (Nenqay Deni Accord, 2016: 8).

Once Aboriginal Title and Rights were granted to the Tsilhqot’in Nation the first study conducted was an Inventory of Wildlife, Ecological, and Landscape connectivity values,

Tŝilhqot’in First Nations Cultural/ Heritage values, & resource conflicts in the Dasiqox-Taseko

Watershed, BC Chilcotin. This document was the beginning of identifying an area that was culturally and ecologically significant to designate as a Tribal Park. There was identification of important aspects such as critical habitat and traditional food gathering zones. Extensive maps of

247

habitat, different existing wildlife management plan zones, existing and proposed resource extraction areas, and Aboriginal Title and Rights areas were commissioned for this report from a

GIS specialist. Since 2014 and the inventory study, the proposed boundaries for Dasiqox have evolved as the management process has developed. Currently, the boundaries proposed are:

“slated for an area separate and distinct from the lands the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged Tsilhqot’in title to in 2014.” (Lamb-Yorski, 2019: para 3) In October of 2014 the

Tsilhqot’in Nation officially announced the Dasiqox Tribal Park initiative. For the first few years the initiative was managed jointly by the Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in communities. Eventually the financial burden on those two communities became great enough that they pursued the use of a third-party shared platform, Tides Canada in 2017.

The first document released to describe intentions for the Dasiqox Initiative was the

Dasiqox Tribal Park Draft Position Paper, released March 2016. This document highlighted the core planning pillars of: ecosystem stewardship, economic sustainable livelihoods, and cultural revitalization (Draft Position Paper, 2016). In 2018 the Nexwagwez?an: Community Vision and

Management Goals for Dasiqox Tribal Park document was released. The goals and management directives included in this document were collected from extensive meetings and interviews with community members. Dr. Jonaki Bhattacharyya of the Firelight Group assisted in comprising the interviews and main themes for this document. Following the release of the Community Vision and Management Goals document, the Dasiqox staff and chiefs from the Xeni Gwet’in and

Yunesit’in First Nations held community meetings in Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in as well as in surrounding non-first nation communities. The main priorities and management goals were split into the categories of: ecosystem protection (water, forests and vegetation, wildlife and habitat); cultural revitalization (hunting, fishing, harvesting plants and animals, cultural continuity and

248

language, health and well-being and time on the land); and sustainable livelihoods (sustainable local economy, cultural and ecological tourism, value-added economic initiatives for forestry, capacity for long term employment as community conservation officers and guardian monitors).

In the case of Dasiqox the movement towards Tsilhqot’in management of their land and resources began in 1989 with the Nemiah Declaration (Nemiah Declaration, 1989). In 2014 following the supreme court case granting aboriginal rights and title to the Tsilhqot’in nation to traditional territory, the official planning and outreach process began. The long-term planning and development of a site with the needs and interests of the community in mind is highlighted in the 2018/2019 Public Engagement Summary: “Dasiqox Tribal Park is a long-term endeavor and relationship between people and the land, and we look forward to sharing more as it progresses.” (Public Engagement Summary, 2019: 5) The fight against Taseko mines continues, in July of 2019 members of the Tsilhqot’in First Nations blockaded the entrance to Taseko

Mines work sites and prevented work crews from entering (Bennett, 2019). In September of

2019 the Supreme court of Canada issued an injunction “to prevent Vancouver-based Taseko

Mines Limited from doing any work until the court rules whether the provincial permit for a drilling program infringes on Tsilhqot’in Indigenous rights.” (Cruickshank, 2019: para 2)

Dasiqox Stakeholders:

As of 2017, the Dasiqox Tribal Park initiative is a project under the Tides Canada platform.

Described on the Tides Canada website as “a unique shared platform that powers social change initiatives across the country from our shared in-house governance and administration expertise”

(“Our Story”, 2019: para 4). The Dasiqox Tribal Park website describes that “the initiative is led by a Steering Committee made up of Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in leadership” (“Who we are”,

2019: para 3). The choice was made to further develop Dasiqox as an initiative separate from the

249

communities so that financial burden did not disproportionately fall on one of the communities

(Personal conversations with Tribal Park Coordinator, 2018). Dasiqox is described by Tides

Canada as:

The Tribal Park presents an alternative vision for the management and governance of

the land in this area, which reflects the values of the local people who live from the

land. It includes environmental protection, creating sustainable livelihoods and

upholding the land as a place where Tŝilhqot’in language and culture can thrive

(“Dasiqox Tribal Park Initiative”, 2019: para 2).

There have been several national and international foundations and non-profit environmental organizations that have provided support towards the Dasiqox Tribal Park initiative (Figure

9). Dr. Jonaki Bhattacharyya, research manager for the Firelight Group, authored a report:

“Priorities and needs for First Nations Establishing Indigenous Protected Areas in British

Columbia”. The introduction to this report states the intention is “to identify and address key questions and needs of First Nations and Indigenous communities interested in establishing

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAS) or similar stewardship initiatives in Canada, with a focus on

British Columbia.” (The Firelight Group, 2016: 5). Dr. Jonaki Bhattacharyya also helped to prepare the Community Vision and Management Goals document with the Dasiqox Tribal Park staff in partnership with the Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in communities. The Wilburforce

Foundation is acknowledged for their support of the report. Tides Canada, the David Suzuki

Foundation and the TNC Canada are also acknowledged for in-kind contributions

(Nexwagwez?an: Community Vision and Management Goals, 2018).

The Wilburforce Foundation lists Dasiqox Tribal Park as their priority project for the

B.C. Central Interior. The Wilburforce website describes Dasiqox as of interest to the ecosystem

250

and habitat protection efforts supported by Wilburforce because: “it provides connectivity between six existing protected areas, migratory travel corridors for many species, and represents one of the richest ecological zones in Canada” (“BC Central Interior”, 2019: para 1). The David

Suzuki Foundation has also contributed to the efforts of Dasiqox Tribal Park, the foundation produced a report “Tribal Parks and Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas: Lessons

Learned from B.C. Examples” (Plotkin, 2018) which includes Dasiqox Tribal Park as one of the examples. Also, newspaper articles describe visit by David Suzuki to Tŝilhqot’in gathering at

Teztan Biny during the summer of 2018 with Miles Richardson (former head of the Haida

Nation). The event at Teztan Bity was a response to the August 23rd, 2018 decision by the B.C. government to uphold the Taseko mining permit (Anthony, 2018). David Williams, the president of the non-profit Friends of the Nemaiah Valley described the Dasiqox effort as: “Right now, the meaning of tribal park is anyone’s guess,” Williams said. “It’s like a game of choose your own adventure.” (Gilchrist, 2016: para 35). The Friends of Nemaiah Valley organization is described by the Narwhal as a group that supports the Tŝilhqot’in nation in strengthening its culture. The

Friends of the Nemaiah Valley website describes the group as being involved since the 1980s in assisting the Xeni Gwet’in in pursuing protection of aboriginal territory and the Nemiah

Declaration. The non-profit is based out of Victoria, British Columbia and many of the board members live in Victoria (Friends of the Nemaiah Valley, 2019). Joe Foy of the Wilderness

Committee said people in his office rejoiced the news of declaring Dasiqox. He thinks the Tribal

Park movement is evolving and a whole new emerging concept of land protection is developing

(Hume, 2014). The Wilderness Committee website includes a Dasiqox Tribal Park-Fish Lake

(Teztan Biny) campaign page. This page includes links to maps and reports regarding Dasiqox and the campaign against the Prosperity Mine. The Valhalla Wilderness Society (VWS) is

251

described in newspaper articles as being a longtime advocate of protecting the Tŝilhqot’in Title land for its wildlife habitat (Hume, 2014). Dasiqox Tribal Park is mentioned as one of the VWS supported projects in several VWS newsletters (No. 58, No. 59, No. 60). This newsletter references the “Inventory of Wildlife, Ecological, and Landscape connectivity values,

Tŝilhqot’in First Nations Cultural/ Heritage values, & resource conflicts in the Dasiqox-Taseko

Watershed, BC Chilcotin” report as being partially funded by VWS. All three VWS newsletters that mention Dasiqox describe support for the Tribal Park as well as a wish that the Tŝilhqot’in nation would go in the direction of developing a Stein Class A Tribal Park (federally recognized) which the First Nation has chosen not to do. (VWS, 2015; VWS, 2016; VWS, 2017).

The Mayor of Williams Lake has been outspoken in opposition to the development of

Dasiqox. In an article published by CBC British Columbia, the Mayor is quoted speaking out against Dasiqox: "The ranchers are concerned, the loggers are concerned, the tourism operators are concerned, that once this becomes a park, they'll be history" (“Dasiqox Tribal Park draws opposition”, 2015: para 10). Mayor Walt Cobb and Cariboo Regional District Area director

Betty Anderson were quoted in an article opposing Dasiqox and planning on writing letters in opposition of Dasiqox to the Prime Minister and the Premier. “‘I see no need for more parks and am very concerned about the resources base affected, including the area of the proposed

Prosperity Mine,’ Anderson told council. ‘I believe this is the main reason for the desire to form the Tribal Park, in order to stop the mine in particular, as well as logging.’” (Lamb-Yorski, 2015: para 7) The response of Chiefs Roger William (Xeni Gwet’in) and Russel Myers Ross

(Yunesit’in) was that title lands cutting off economic development is a myth (Lamb-Yorski,

2015). Another article describes how the term Tribal Park has caused some distrust in the

252

communities and non-first nation neighbors because of connotations with the term “park”

(Gilchrist, 2016).

The relationship between the announcement of Dasiqox Tribal Park and neighboring communities is not all negative. In the Williams Lake Tribune, there was an opinion piece by a community member who attended a public meeting regarding scoping for the development of

Dasiqox. His description was that most of the 25 attendees were supportive of developing an approach that meets First Nations needs following the 2014 granting of Aboriginal Title and

Rights (Hilton, 2018). Chief Russel Myers Ross has also presented to the Cariboo Regional

District (CRD) in 2018, according to an article in the local newspaper, My Cariboo Now, the

CRD was very receptive to the proposal and would like that meeting to be the first step in an open dialogue between the CRD and regional First Nations regarding land use (My Cariboo

Now, 2018).

Appendix B: ITRR Blackfeet Conservation Area Survey Responses

The Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research (ITRR) at the University of Montana conducted a survey regarding visitor interest in cultural tourism in the state of Montana. A section of this survey included a hypothetical scenario regarding a Blackfeet Conservation Area

This survey was developed through a review of studies conducted by other institutions regarding cultural tourism in Indian Country, as well as past Community Tourism Assessment Program

(CTAP) reports conducted in Native American communities by ITRR in the past. Question development was conducted in partnership with members of the Blackfeet Nation involved in tourism development in their communities to ensure survey information collected will meet the interests and needs of tourism development efforts. Many evolutions of the survey questionnaire were distributed for feedback.

253

The survey was conducted using an on-line panel of past visitors to Montana as well as travelers who have not been to Montana. This study was conducted using two panels. The first was a panel of residents and non-residents of the state of Montana who had been intercepted in the past by surveyors from ITRR and indicated willingness to participate in additional surveys in the future. The second panel was a purchased quota from Qualtrics. For this panel there was a quota requested of: 200 United States resident responses, 100 Canadian responses, and 50 of each from Australia, United Kingdom, France, and Germany. These countries were chosen based on ITRR non-resident survey data which identified residents of these countries as high visitors to the state of Montana. During the data analysis process, the ITRR Panel was split into two categories: Montana residents, and Avid Montana Travelers. The Qualtrics Panel was divided into: Potential Montana Traveler (only respondents who were residents of the United States and

Canada) and Potential International Traveler (respondents who were residents of the four international countries requested in the panel).

Limitations

The ITRR Panel and the Qualtrics Panel were not combined because significance tests indicated there was a statistically significant difference between the two panels on many questions. It is important to note that the ITRR Panel is comprised of past visitors to the state of Montana and is therefore representative of people who have visited Montana, but not necessarily representative of the general population. The Qualtrics Panel is representative of the population more generally, regardless of any previous trip to Montana. Because of these differences in sampling, we do not expect the two panels to necessarily have similar distributions.

254

Response rate

For the ITRR panel the survey link was sent to two list-serves. The first was Montana residents, in this list-serve 839 valid emails were sent. Five days later a reminder email was sent to all unfinished respondents. 210 responses were received from this list-serve for a response rate of

25%. The second list-serve was nonresident visitors to the state of Montana. From this list 5,560 valid emails were sent. This panel was also sent a reminder email after five days. From this list

1,438 completed surveys were received for a response rate of 26%. There were 6,399 total valid emails sent to the ITRR Panel with a response of 1,648. The response rate for the ITRR panel was 25%.

For the Qualtrics Panel, response rates are not calculated. As previously noted, quotas were established based on desired residency. Surveys sent out via Qualtrics-based panels are sent to potential respondents who have signed up and agreed to routinely answer surveys when they are identified as meeting the population requirements of the surveyor. Once a survey is initiated,

Qualtrics opens the survey link to its entire panel and then filters respondents out who do not meet the established criteria. Once 10 percent of the desired sample is collected, the survey is paused to ensure collection is meeting the needs of the surveyor (ITRR). If acceptable, the survey is reopened and completed. Quality control checks are established by Qualtrics to eliminate any respondents who are not fully completing the survey, who don’t meet the requirements, or who have obviously sped through the survey without actually considering the questions as evidenced by response time.

Place of Residence

The ITRR Panel was comprised of 80% residents of the United States, of these residents’ 13% were Montana residents from the ITRR Montana resident panel. The ITRR Panel was comprised

255

of 18% Canadian residents. There were also a small number of respondents from other countries, including the United Kingdom (.68%) and the Netherlands (.17%). For the Qualtrics Panel respondents were distributed evenly to meet the requested quota (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Place of Residence

Place of Residence ITRR Panel Qualtrics Panel Resident of the United States 80% (1,408) 39% (204) Resident of Montana 13% (237) 0% Resident of Canada 18% (317) 6% (105)

Respondents were asked four series of questions regarding their travel preferences and interest in different activities in general, not specific to travel in Montana. These questions were asked on

5-point scales, (Figure 2) asked respondents about interests regarding visiting Native American sites and participating in activities in Indian Country. This series used a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all interested) to 5 (extremely interested). The activity with the highest average interest in the

ITRR Panel was “Museums/Heritage centers” with an average of 3.70 for the Avid Montana

Traveler, and 3.72 for Montana Residents. For the Qualtrics Panel groups the mean was highest for the Potential Montana Traveler group (3.57). The Potential International Montana Traveler group had a mean of 3.41 in this category, the highest interest in this group was for

“restaurants/dining featuring Native American food” with a mean of 3.52. The activity that respondents indicated the least interest in was “Overnight guided experiences” with an average of 2.49 for the Avid Montana Traveler, and 2.53 for Montana Residents. In the Qualtrics panel groups the mean for Potential Montana Traveler group was 3.16 and 3.26 for the Potential

International Montana Traveler.

Figure 2: Interest in Native American sites and activities

256

How interested would you be in visiting or participating Avid MT Potential Potential in the following Native American sites and activities… MT Resident MT International Traveler Traveler MT Traveler Mean Mean Mean Mean Museums/Heritage centers 3.70 3.72 3.57 3.41 Fairs or markets with native crafts to view or purchase 3.51 3.51 3.49 3.49 Restaurants/dining featuring Native American food 3.45 3.49 3.47 3.52 Special events/festivals related to Native American culture 3.48 3.51 3.15 3.37 Demonstrations/live cultural performances (e.g., cooking, 3.51 3.55 3.46 3.38 arts, weaponry) Oral history of a tribe 3.44 3.51 3.33 3.35 Immersive experience (e.g., powwows, dances) 3.12 3.33 3.26 3.12 Half or full day guided experiences 3.01 2.96 3.45 3.43 Overnight guided experiences 2.49 2.53 3.16 3.26 **5-point scale from 1(not at all interested) to 5 (extremely interested)

The second travel preferences question (Figure 3) asked 5-point scale agreement statements with

1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement. The statement with the

highest agreement for the ITRR Panel groups was “If I had information on scenic roads through

Native American lands, I would include this route in my activities” with an average agreement of

4.06 for the Avid Montana Traveler and 3.93 for Montana Residents. The statement with the

least agreement was “I would choose to visit a Native American Reservation or community for

gambling opportunities” This statement had an average of 1.96 for the Avid Montana Traveler

and 1.84 for the Montana Resident. Interest was slightly higher for the Qualtrics Panels with

3.04 for the Potential Montana Travelers and 2.74 for the Potential International Montana

Traveler.

Figure 3: Agreement with travel statements

Agreement with travel statements… Avid MT Potential Potential MT Resident MT International Traveler Traveler MT Traveler Mean Mean Mean Mean I would seek out a Native American community to visit 3.21 3.24 3.44 3.31 a native cultural event (e.g., dance, powwow). I would like to lead myself through interpretive 3.97 4.00 3.36 3.25 opportunities (e.g., hiking trail with interpretive signs,

257

driving personal vehicle on roads with interpretive pullouts). I would choose to visit a Native American Reservation 1.96 1.84 3.04 2.74 or community for gambling opportunities. I would like to visit a Native American community for 3.74 3.46 3.53 3.38 bison viewing opportunities. I would like to visit a Native American community for 3.96 3.76 3.69 3.68 other wildlife viewing opportunities. If I am participating in an outdoor activity on Native 3.89 3.77 3.59 3.48 American lands, cultural interpretation of the area is important. If I had information on the scenic roads through Native 4.06 3.93 3.64 3.55 American lands, I would include this route in my activities. **5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

The fourth travel preferences question (Figure 4) asked respondents about likelihood to

participate in different guided activities on Native American lands using a 5-point scale from 1

(extremely unlikely) to 5 (extremely likely). The guided experience with the highest likelihood

of participation for the ITRR Panel groups was “A guided hike of cultural sites with a tribal

guide” with an average of 3.58 for the Avid Montana Traveler group and 3.46 for the Montana

resident group. For the Qualtrics Panel the most likely activity was “a guided horseback trip with

a tribal tour guide.” With a mean of 3.57 for the Potential Montana Traveler group and 3.65 for

the Potential International Montana Traveler group. The guided experience with the least

likelihood of participation for both panels was “A guided hunting trip into the back-country with

a tribal guide” with an average of 2.11 and 2.16 for the Avid Montana Traveler group and the

Montana Resident group, respectively. In the Qualtrics Panel the mean was 2.79 for the Potential

Montana Traveler, and 2.61 for the Potential International Montana Traveler. The likelihood to

participate in guided experiences was overall higher for the Qualtrics Panel groups.

Figure 4: Participation in guided experiences

258

Likelihood to participate in guided experiences… Avid MT MT Potential Potential Traveler Resident MT International Traveler MT Traveler Mean Mean Mean Mean A guided horseback trip with a tribal tour guide. 2.89 2.77 3.57 3.65 A guided interpretive bus tour with a tribal tour guide. 2.90 2.76 3.52 3.36 A guided trip on an Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) with a 3.13 2.90 3.46 3.39 tribal tour guide. A guided nature hike with a tribal tour guide. 3.48 3.29 3.47 3.50 A guided hike of cultural sites with a tribal guide. 3.58 3.46 3.55 3.50 A guided fishing trip with a tribal guide. 2.76 2.65 3.05 2.87 A guided hunting trip into the back-country with a 2.11 2.16 2.79 2.61 tribal guide. **5-point scale from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 5 (extremely likely)

Interest in exploring sites and experiences related to Native American culture and history was

highest in the Montana Resident group and the Potential Montana Traveler groups with a mean

of 3.58 for each of these groups. The avid Montana Traveler was slightly lower at a mean of

3.50, and the Potential International Montana Traveler group reported a mean of 3.49.

Figure 5: Interest in exploring culture and history on reservations in Montana

How interested would you be in exploring sites and Avid MT MT Potential Potential experiences related to Native American culture and Traveler Resident MT International history on Native American Reservations in Traveler MT Traveler Montana? Very uninterested 10% (138) 10% (23) 10% (31) 9% (20) Uninterested 7% (106) 5% (12) 9% (28) 5% (10) Neither interested nor uninterested 24% (343) 23% (52) 18% (55) 32% (67) Interested 42% (608) 39% (88) 40% (126) 36% (77) Very interested 17% (244) 23% (51) 23% (73) 18% (38) Mean 3.50 3.58 3.58 3.49 Blackfeet Conservation Area (BCA) and Blackfeet Tribal National Park

(BTNP) Scenarios

In addition to the general travel and interest questions already discussed, survey respondents

were provided with a scenario regarding a hypothetical conservation area on Blackfeet Nation

land. This scenario showed a map (Figure 6) of the proposed area, pictures of the landscape, and

259

a description of the activities that would be available. The scenario and corresponding questions were randomized through the Qualtrics platform so that approximately half of the respondents received a scenario with the term “Blackfeet Conservation Area” and the other half received the same scenario with the term “Blackfeet Tribal National Park”. Tests showed there was no statistical significance between the two terms across all questions asked, therefore results of the two terms were combined.

Figure 6: Blackfeet Conservation Area

Respondents were first asked about past visitation to Glacier National Park. Many respondents had visited Glacier in the past (Figure 7). For the ITRR panel, 76% of the Avid Montana

Traveler group and 92% of Montana Residents had visited Glacier. In the Qualtrics panel, 69% of the Potential Montana Travelers who had been to Montana had visited Glacier while in the state. In the Potential International Montana Traveler group, 73% of those who had been to

260

Montana visited Glacier on that trip. The Montana Residents and Avid Montana Traveler group

had visited Glacier frequently (34% of Montana Residents and 13% of Avid Montana Travelers

had visited Glacier more than 11 times). It was expected based on their infrequent trips to

Montana in general that the Potential Montana Traveler and Potential International Montana

Traveler groups had only been to Glacier a couple of times, 60% of the Potential Montana

Traveler group and 80% of the Potential International Montana Traveler group had visited

Glacier only one or two times.

Figure 7: Previous visits to Glacier National Park

Have you visited Glacier National Park? Avid MT MT Potential Potential Traveler Resident MT International Traveler MT Traveler Yes 76% (1065) 92% (205) 69% (84) 73% (11) No 24% (339) 8% (19) 31% (37) 27% (4)

The future intentions of Avid Montana Travelers and Montana Residents to visit Glacier in the

next two years was also higher than the Potential Montana Traveler groups with 44% of Avid

Montana Travelers and 71% of Montana Residents indicating probably or definitely planning to

visit Glacier in the next two years. In the Potential Montana Traveler group 38% indicated they

would probably or definitely visit Glacier in the next two years, 25% of Potential International

Montana Travelers indicated probably or definitely.

Figure 8: Future intentions to visit Glacier National Park

Do you plan to visit in the next two Avid MT MT Resident Potential Potential years? Traveler MT Traveler International MT Traveler Definitely not 2% (22) 0% (1) 13% (42) 16% (33) Probably not 16% (232) 7% (15) 25% (77) 23% (49) Might or might not 38% (543) 22% (49) 24% (75) 37% (78) Probably yes 27% (392) 32% (71) 25% (77) 19% (40) Definitely yes 17% (241) 39% (88) 13% (42) 6% (12)

261

Respondents were asked if they were to visit Glacier, what their likelihood would be of also

making a day or overnight trip to the BCA. The highest expression of ‘extremely likely’ for a

day trip was by Potential Montana Travelers and Potential International Montana Travelers with

26% and 25% respectively. While the Avid Montana Traveler and the Montana Residents

indicated such at a rate of 16% and 13%, respectively; these two groups were however, more

likely to indicate ‘somewhat likely’ than were their counterparts. The expression of interest in an

overnight trip at the level of ‘extremely likely’ in was also higher for the Potential Montana

Travelers (22%) and Potential International Montana Traveler (15%) than for the Avid Montana

Traveler (7%) and Montana Residents (6%) (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Likelihood to visit BCA/BTNP

If making a trip to Glacier how likely would Avid MT MT Potential Potential you be to also make a trip to the Blackfeet Traveler Resident MT Traveler International Conservation Area/ Blackfeet Tribal National MT Traveler Park? Likelihood of a day trip? Extremely unlikely 8% (80) 7% (16) 10% (30) 8% (16) Somewhat unlikely 9% (95) 15% (33) 8% (26) 4% (9) Neither likely nor unlikely 22% (227) 23% (52) 17% (53) 25% (52) Somewhat likely 45% (463) 42% (93) 39% (123) 38% (81) Extremely likely 16% (168) 13% (30) 26% (80) 25% (54) Likelihood of an overnight trip? Extremely unlikely 16% (225) 21% (46) 15% (46) 10% (21) Somewhat unlikely 21% (306) 21% (47) 12% (39) 8% (16) Neither likely nor unlikely 28% (407) 30% (66) 20% (63) 30% (63) Somewhat likely 27% (391) 23% (51) 31% (97) 38% (81) Extremely likely 7% (100) 6% (13) 22% (68) 15% (31)

Averaged across all groups, 9.7% of respondents indicated they were extremely likely to make

an overnight trip to a Blackfeet Conservation Area. Using the rounded average number of

recreation visits over the last three years to Glacier, 3,000,000, this would yield approximately

262

292,000 overnight visits. Similarly, and removing those that also said they were extremely likely to make an overnight visit, an additional 9.2% of respondents said they were extremely likely to make a day trip to the Blackfeet Conservation Area during their next visit to Glacier. This yields another 275,000 visits to the area.

Glacier National Park uses a vehicle loading factor of 2.9 person per vehicle in estimating their total recreation visits. Using this same value to back out the number of group trips to the area yields 195,000 group trips ((292,000+275,000)/2.9) based on the number that indicated extremely likely to visit. In addition to stating their desire, or lack of, to visit the proposed

Blackfeet Conservation Area, respondents were asked to provide estimates of their willingness to pay to both enter the area as well as to take part in various activities that may be provided

(Figure 12). Across all the various spending categories Montanans indicated the lowest willingness to pay, typically followed by those respondents considered to be avid Montana travelers. For the following discussion, a weighted average is generated that proportionately represents the responses of each group. On average, respondents indicated a willingness to pay of

$11 for a daily entrance fee. At this level, 37% of all respondents would have been willing to pay the entrance fee. In terms of an installation of an annual pass, respondents indicated on average a willingness to pay of $24, and 47% of respondents indicated a willingness in excess of this average.

Backcountry day-use hiking permits yielded an average willingness to pay of $5, with

47% of respondents willing to pay that amount. Forty seven percent of respondents indicated they would be willing to pay at least the $13 average willingness to pay for primitive camping per night. Meanwhile, developed camping (restrooms, electricity, running water, etc.) generated an average willingness to pay of $34, with 33% indicting at least this amount. Opportunities for a

263

Lodge (teepee) stay yielded an average willingness to pay of $46, with 55% indicating at least

this amount. Respondents indicated on average that they would be willing to pay $42 per person

per half day of a guided cultural tour; however, only 29% indicated a willingness above this

average. More than half of avid Montana travelers and Montanans indicated a value of $40.

Figure 10: Willingness to pay

If making a trip to Glacier how much would you Avid MT MT Potential Potential likely pay for the following in the BCA/BTNP… Traveler Resident MT International Traveler MT Traveler Daily fee you would be willing to pay for entry? $0 9% (122) 13% (29) 8% (25) 9% (19) $2 2% (32) 3% (6) 4% (11) 3% (6) $5 14% (202) 21% (47) 12% (38) 12% (26) $10 40% (567) 37% (83) 26% (82) 35% (74) $15 14% (196) 11% (25) 21% (66) 18% (39) $20 22% (308) 15% (34) 29% (91) 22% (47) Mean $11 $10 $12 $11 For an annual pass? $0 23% (331) 19% (42) 14% (43) 16% (34) $10 11% (156) 11% (24) 9% (29) 7% (14) $20 22% (306) 31% (69) 17% (54) 18% (39) $30 19% (274) 19% (42) 14% (42) 23% (49) $40 12% (170) 11% (24) 23% (72) 19% (41) $50 13% (183) 10% (22) 23% (71) 17% (35) Mean $22 $22 $29 $27 For a backcountry day-use hiking permit, per person. $0 23% (329) 30% (67) 14% (43) 13% (27) $2 11% (158) 13% (30) 11% (33) 10% (21) $4 21% (306) 24% (53) 13% (41) 18% (38) $6 18% (256) 14% (32) 15% (48) 26% (55) $8 5% (77) 4% (9) 17% (52) 13% (27) $10 21% (299) 15% (33) 31% (96) 20% (41) Mean $5 $4 $6 $6 For primitive camping, per night. $0 27% (380) 29% (66) 16% (50) 14% (29)

264

$10 29% (418) 41% (92) 18% (57) 23% (49) $15 19% (266) 17% (39) 14% (45) 16% (34) $20 17% (242) 9% (21) 20% (63) 25% (53) $30 5% (72) 2% (5) 16% (49) 17% (36) $40 3% (41) 0% (1) 15% (47) 5% (10) Mean $12 $9 $19 $17

For developed camping, per night. $0 14% (196) 19% (42) 12% (38) 12% (25) $25 58% (825) 66% (148) 35% (107) 35% (73) $50 21% (297) 13% (28) 25% (77) 29% (61) $75 4% (60) 2% (5) 12% (38) 17% (36) $100 2% (25) 0 10% (31) 6% (13) $125 1% (10) 0 6% (19) 1% (3) Mean $31 $25 $48 $44 For lodge (teepee) stays, per night. $0 20% (276) 27% (60) 16% (49) 13% (27) $25 24% (344) 34% (75) 25% (76) 24% (50) $50 27% (380) 24% (54) 21% (66) 26% (54) $75 16% (219) 11% (25) 18% (55) 20% (42) $100 9% (130) 3% (6) 13% (40) 14% (29) $125 4% (57) 1% (3) 8% (24) 3% (7) Mean $46 $33 $53 $52 For a guided, half day, cultural tour (per person). $0 21% (293) 30% (66) 17% (51) 14% (30) $40 53% (752) 51% (113) 39% (121) 45% (96) $60 17% (235) 15% (34) 20% (61) 24% (50) $80 5% (72) 2% (5) 7% (23) 9% (20) $100 2% (29) 1% (3) 9% (28) 6% (12) $120 2% (27) 0% (1) 7% (23) 1% (3) Mean $40 $33 $52 $47 For a guided, full day, cultural tour (per person). $0 27% (374) 36% (81) 20% (61) 16% (34) $75 52% (720) 45% (99) 46% (142) 49% (103) $150 13% (176) 10% (22) 14% (45) 18% (39) $225 6% (81) 7% (16) 7% (23) 9% (20) $300 1% (18) 0% (1) 7% (23) 4% (9) $375 2% (28) 1% (3) 6% (18) 3% (6)

265

Mean $82 $71 $116 $109

Conclusions & Recommendations As the Blackfeet Nation considers using a Tribal Park as a model for harnessing tourism on

Blackfeet lands, the results of this report become important to consider. These groups consisted of Montanans, frequent visitors to Montana who have been coined ‘Avid Montana Visitors,’ potential domestic (and Canadian) visitors who may or may not have been to Montana, as well as international travelers who also may or may not have been to Montana in the past. The four groups have been reported here separately as they have identifiably distinct differences in not only their frequency of travel in or to Montana, but also in their preferences. They each make up portions of the Montana visitor or potential visitor. In recent years, 75% of all nonresident visitor groups to Montana were repeat visitors.1

From the companion report to this one, we learned that majorities of travelers who pass through the Blackfeet Reservation stop on their way through. Of those that do not, respondents typically note that they did not plan to stop and others indicate they did not see anything of interest or could not find a place to eat. Those avid Montana travelers who stopped were most

1 ITRR Interactive Data 2016, 2017, 2018: http://itrr.umt.edu/interactive-data/default.php

266

likely to indicate that they participated in Glacier National Park Sun Tours or the Museum of the

Plains Indians. Montanans too, were most likely to visit the Museum of the Plains.

With this said, survey respondents stated a high level of interest in visiting a Blackfeet

Conservation Area (BCA) or Blackfeet Tribal National Park (no difference noted between name of the area) on their next trip to Glacier National Park, should it exist at the time. Across all respondents, 19% indicated an ‘extremely likely’ interest in a day trip to a BCA and 10% indicated an ’extremely likely’ interest in an overnight trip. Accounting for overlap between the two trip types among respondents, this interest could generate nearly 200,000 group trips to a

BCA. Achieving such a volume of trips would be dependent upon adequate and attractive information getting into the hands of travelers at the points in time when they are making trip planning decisions. Qualitative comments made by survey respondents as to why they may have chosen not to participate in various activities in tribal communities, hinged on their awareness of opportunities. Several indicated they would have stopped at various locations had they had the time and planned for it.

Across most willingness to pay (WTP) questions, Montanans and Avid Montana visitors consistently stated a lower willingness to pay than those other respondents who may have been to Montana once or twice, if at all. Figure 11 summarizes the various average prices each group is willing to pay for entry and various activities that may be made available if a BCA is established. Two pieces of information are important to note in these summaries. First, the averages include those respondents that indicate a $0 willingness to pay for each given activity.

This inclusion can have the effect of downward adjusting the average of those actually interested in participating. Based on the questions included, it is not possible to easily determine those that report a $0 as a statement of lack of any interest in the activity or merely one they expect to be

267

free. Secondly, the overall average within WTP categories is above the WTP of Montanan

respondents and frequently above that of the avid Montana visitor. While this survey does not

discern the rationale for the various differences among groups, the differences are important.

Where less frequent, or new, visitors may express a higher WTP, the Montanans and avid

visitors to the state express a higher likelihood of visiting Glacier in the next two years. The

combination of these two indicate a need for careful consideration of price setting when the time

arises. Further, Montanans and frequent Montana visitors are more likely to be confident in their

own exploration with minimal information compared to a new visitor who may want more

information or guiding.

Figure 11. Respondent Willingness to Pay for BCA Entry and Select Activities.2

If making a trip to Glacier how much would you likely pay for the following in the BCA/BTNP…

Avid MT Potential Potential All MT Resident MT International Respondents Traveler Traveler MT Traveler Daily fee you would be willing to pay for $11 $10 $12 $11 $11 entry? For an annual pass? $22 $22 $29 $27 $24 For a backcountry day-use hiking permit, per person. $5 $4 $6 $6 $5 For primitive camping, per night. $12 $9 $19 $17 $13 For developed camping, per night. $31 $25 $48 $44 $34 For lodge (teepee) stays, per night. $46 $33 $53 $52 $46 For a guided, half day, cultural tour (per person). $40 $33 $52 $47 $42 For a guided, full day, cultural tour (per person). $82 $71 $116 $109 $88

2 All reported averages include those respondents indicating a $0 willingness to pay.

268

Though the interest in increasing tribal or cultural tourism industries is currently prevalent in the tribal communities of Montana. It is important to consider infrastructure developments needed, and information dissemination tools required to harness potential visitors as they plan trips to

Montana.

269

Appendix C: Notes on Terminology

Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs): There are several terms emerging to describe conservation areas created by indigenous people worldwide. The term ICCA used by the IUCN was focused on for this study, however (Indigenous Protected Area) IPA and

(Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area) IPCA are also terms emerging in use, they are the same as ICCAs in utility. Therefore, for consistency the term ICCA is used in this study to refer to indigenous conservation areas other than sites that explicitly chose the terminology of Tribal

Park.

Buffalo vs. Bison: The term buffalo is used in this study to refer to Bison. The scientific name being Bison, however in interviews and discussions with tribal members the terms were used interchangeably, with more respondents using buffalo than bison. In Sebastian Felix Braun’s book “Buffalo Inc.” he describes his reasoning for using the term buffalo as, “There is a long tradition of the term being applied to the North American animal, although it might not be the scientifically correct name, probably more people say buffalo than bison. It is also, perhaps, the culturally correct name.” (Braun, 2008: 13) For this reason the term buffalo was used throughout this study for consistency.

270